HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
MOHIT KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 20 / 2025
(A) BNS Act - Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(2) - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for selling Instagram ID and committing cyber fraud - Co-accused granted bail, investigation completed, no criminal antecedents - Court inclined to grant bail considering the circumstances. (Paras 1, 2, 3)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail include the nature of the allegations, prior bail granted to co-accused, and the duration of trial - Court emphasizes that observations made are for bail purposes only and should not influence the trial court. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.178/2024 for selling his Instagram ID, allegedly leading to cyber fraud against the complainant, causing financial loss. Co-accused has been granted bail, and the petitioner has no prior criminal record.
Findings of Court:
The court finds sufficient grounds to grant bail based on the completion of the investigation, the nature of the charges, and the fact that the trial will take a long time.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, the status of co-accused, and the appropriateness of granting bail given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner should be granted bail due to the completion of the investigation, absence of criminal antecedents, and the fact that the trial will take a considerable time, emphasizing that the observations made are limited to the bail application.
Result: Bail application allowed.
Order :
1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.178/2024 registered at Police Station Bali, Dist. Pali, for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(2) of BNS.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the present petitioner is of selling his instagram ID to co-accused Raj Bahadur. Further allegation against the present petitioner is that the petitioner after selling his instagram ID to Raj Bahadur has committed cyber fraud with the complainant- Lalit and caused him huge financial loss.
4. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused Mukesh Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by the competent criminal Court. As per the charge-sheet submitted by the investigating agency before the competent criminal Court, the master mind of the alleged crime is co-accused Raj Bahadur.
5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; investigation against the petitioner has already been completed; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are triable by a Court of Magistrate and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the co-accused Mukesh has already been enlarged on bail by the competent criminal Court and the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are triable by a Court of Magistrate.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
8. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Mohit Kumar S/o Vijay Kumar arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.178/2024 registered at Police Station Bali, Dist. Pali, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
9. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
Bail granted based on completed investigation, absence of criminal record, and co-accused already released on bail.
The court granted bail based on the completion of the investigation and the civil nature of the allegations, emphasizing that the charges are triable by a Magistrate.
Bail can be granted based on parity with co-accused, provided there is no risk of the accused influencing witnesses or fleeing justice.
Bail applications granted based on parity with co-accused and consideration of lengthy trial, without prejudice to trial court's future decisions.
Bail may be granted when the accused has not played an active role in the alleged crime and the trial is expected to be lengthy.
Section 480(6) of BNSS allows bail after 60 days in custody but does not confer an absolute right, requiring judicial discretion based on trial progress and flight risk.
The court emphasized that the right to liberty must be balanced against the seriousness of allegations and the duration of custody, allowing bail when no previous criminal record exists.
Bail may be granted when investigation is complete and no risk of influencing witnesses exists, emphasizing case-specific evaluation.
The court granted bail to petitioners based on similar circumstances to co-accused previously granted bail, emphasizing no opinion on case merits.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.