SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 910

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
GANESH RAM MEENA, J
JILSAD S/O ISSAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 14898 / 2024



Advocates:
For Petitioner(s):Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar For Respondent(s): Mr. Naresh Gupta, PP

Bail should be granted when there is no ongoing investigation or need for interrogation, and no other criminal cases pending against the accused.

Headnote:(A) B.N.S.S. - Sections 303(2), 308(2), 313, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2)(a) - Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 - Section 66D - Bail application filed under Section 483 - Petitioners in custody since 10.11.2024, falsely implicated, and no other criminal cases pending against them - Police submitted charge-sheet, indicating no further need for interrogation - Court finds it just to grant bail. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Bail Conditions - Petitioners required to furnish personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, with stipulation to appear before the Court on subsequent dates - Condition imposed to prevent public celebration of release, subject to cancellation of bail if violated. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were arrested in connection with multiple serious offences and have been in custody since November 10, 2024. They argue that they have been falsely implicated and that there is no need for further police interrogation after the charge-sheet was filed.

Findings of Court:
The court deems it appropriate to grant bail based on the lack of ongoing criminal cases and the completion of the police investigation.

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the petitioners should be granted bail considering their claims of false implication and the completion of the investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners' continued custody was unnecessary given the circumstances, emphasizing the principle that bail should be granted when there is no further need for interrogation and no pending charges.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Order :

1. This bail application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.256/2024 registered at Police Station Khoh, District Deeg for offences under Sections 303(2), 308(2), 313, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2)(a) of B.N.S. and Section 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 .

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and they are in custody since 10.11.2024. Counsel further submits that Police after completion of investigation has submitted charge-sheet in the matter and the petitioners are no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery. Counsel further submits that no other criminal case is pending against the petitioners in view of the order of the court below, therefore, they may be released on bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail application.

4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners so also the fact that Police after completion of investigation has submitted charge-sheet in the matter and also the fact that no other criminal case is pending against the petitioners and they are in custody since 10.11.2024, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

6. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail provided they shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) each, together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

7. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the accused-persons of particular areas, who are involved in the online fraud, after their release from a criminal case, will celebrate their release in public. Hence, taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect, a condition is imposed that the petitioners shall not celebrate their release in public and if they are found to be involved in celebrating his release in public, the State shall be at liberty to move the application for cancellation of their bail.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top