[2025:RJ-JP:28723] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5027/2025 Mankhush @ Minkhush S/o Pukhraj, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Sotoli P.s. Bonli District Sawai Madhopur. (At Present In Judicial Custody In Central Jail Sawai Madhopur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP, Sawai Madhopur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aniket Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 29/07/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.97/2025 registered at Police Station Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2) & 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023, Section 13 of Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 and Sections 66C & 66D of I.T. (Amended) Act, 2008. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that no evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. It is submitted that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is submitted that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of the fact that some apps were found in his mobile phone which were being [2025:RJ-JP:28723] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5027/2025] used in commission of cyber fraud. Counsel contends that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 01.04.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; absence of criminal antecedents as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Mankhush @ Minkhush S/o Pukhraj, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned [2025:RJ-JP:28723] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5027/2025] police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 10. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 11. The observations made hereinabove are only for the decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /92