MURSALEEM S/O SUBAN vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 1024

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J
MURSALEEM S/O SUBAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 1785 / 2025

Important Points

Anticipatory bail may be granted when the petitioner demonstrates willingness to cooperate with the investigation and the nature of evidence does not necessitate custodial interrogation.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail

Act Referred

Indian Penal Code : S.419,S.420,S.467,S.468,S.471,S.120B
Information Technology Act : S.66D

Headnote

(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B - Information Technology Act - Section 66D - Anticipatory bail application - Petitioner apprehended arrest in connection with FIR for various offences, claiming false implication and readiness to cooperate with investigation - The court noted that substantial evidence was recovered from co-accused but allowed anticipatory bail based on the petitioner's willingness to cooperate and the nature of the allegations. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court emphasized that the petitioner should be granted bail provided he complies with certain conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent any interference with witnesses. (Paras 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail concerning FIR No.44/2024 for serious offences, arguing false implication and readiness to cooperate with the investigation. Co-accused had disclosed the petitioner's name and substantial evidence was recovered from them.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and adhere to specific conditions.

Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail despite the serious allegations and evidence against co-accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that allowing anticipatory bail was just, considering the petitioner's willingness to cooperate and the nature of the evidence against him.

Result: Anticipatory bail application allowed.

Advocates:
Mr. Aneesh Khan, Mr. Sayed Adeel Naqvi, Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

Order :

1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.44/2024 registered at Police Station Pahadi, District Deeg for the offence(s) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC and Section 66D of IT Act, the petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that 5 android mobile phones along with ATM cards etc. were recovered from the possession of other co-accused Rahul and Rahul has disclosed the name of the petitioner in the said offence. It is also contended that the present petitioner has not committed any offence and other similarly placed co-accused Saikul has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2024. It is also contended that the matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate, the petitioner is ready and willing to co- operate with the investigation and custodial investigation of the petitioner is not required, therefore, anticipatory bail application of the petitioner may be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and contended that from the possession of other co-accused Rahul, several mobile phones, ATM cards and massive amount was recovered. It is also contended that the co-accused Rahul along with the present petitioner were duping several persons through mobile by misrepresenting people at large, therefore, considering the allegations, the anticipatory bail of the petitioner may be dismissed.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. Considering the fact that the mobile phones, ATM cards etc. were recovered from the possession of other co-accused Rahul, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner- Mursaleem S/o Suban, in connection with FIR No.44/2024 registered at Police Station Pahadi, District Deeg, shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.