[2026:RJ-JP:13730]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.13723/2025 Ayub Mohammad S/o Sh. Ibrahim Mohmmad, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Plot No.90, Flat No.102, Dadabari, Behind Alka Cinema, Murlipura, P.S. Murlipura Jaipur West.

(At Present In J.C. At District Jail Central Jail, Jaipur).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, PP Mr. Bheru Ram, I.O., S.I., PS Vidhyadhar Nagar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

02/04/2026

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.428/2025, registered at Police Station Vidyadhar Nagar, District Jaipur City (North) for the offence(s) under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 61(2) of BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is alleged against the petitioner that he committed fraud and in his account an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- was deposited, however, in the charge-sheet submitted before the Court, the concerned Investigating Officer has not even recorded the statements of so- called victim who have been allegedly cheated. It is contended that the complainant Mr. Hanuman Sahai posted as ASI, has filed the present FIR on the basis of doubt alleging that the account maintained by the petitioner seems to be doubtful and 65 complaints have been registered against petitioner's account. The Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of the persons, who filed 65 complaints with regard to petitioner's bank account. It is further contended that the petitioner was arrested on 29.09.2025 and charge-sheet was filed on 25.11.2025, the concerned trial Court has not even framed charges against the petitioner and the trial of the case may take considerable time, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the complaint filed by the complainant was verified by the Investigating Officer and Investigating Officer found that 65 complaints were registered against account maintained by the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statements of the persons who have been allegedly deceived or who have filed the complaint relating to cyber fraud. The Investigating Officer Mr. Bheru Ram, is present in person and he concedes that he has not recorded the statements of the complainants, who have filed the complaint with regard to petitioner's bank account. He further submits that he verified the complaint only through the bank account and statements of so- called victims/complainants who lodged the compliant on cyber portal, were not recorded. It is admitted that there is no criminal case registered against the present petitioner. Therefore, considering the above facts, the bail application of the accused-

petitioner may be dismissed.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. The facts of the case are peculiar itself in nature, the complainant Hanuman Sahay, posted ast ASI in Police Station Vidhayagar Nagar lodged an FIR on 27.09.2025 alleging that the account maintained by Panwar Sales, 40 4C, Jamnapura Road Murlipura Jaipur was open by the present petitioner on 27.03.2024 and there was transaction amounting to Rs.1,50,00,000/- made in the said account. It is also mentioned in the complaint that Dinesh Kumar posted as Constable searched the portal and found that in the bank account maintained by the petitioner, 65 complaints alleging cyber fraud were lodged. The concerned Investigating Officer Mr. Bheru Ram investigated the matter and without verifying and recording the sta