[2025:RJ-JP:21333] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6551/2025 Ishan S/o Jitendar Verma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Sunhari Kicha Uttrakhand Presently Tenant Worker Nagar Bareilly, Police Station Izzatnagar, Uttar Pradesh. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd. Umar Farooq, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 21/05/2025 1. The instant 2nd bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. read with Section 480(6) of BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.254/2024, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Commissionarate Jaipur, for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 406, 419 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 43, 66, 66C, 66D of IT Act. 2. The petitioner has moved an application on the ground that the charges were framed on 26.11.2024 and thereafter, no witnesses have been examined till date, therefore, considering the provision of Section 480(6) of BNSS, the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of second bail application. It is contended that this Court vide [2025:RJ-JP:21333] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6551/2025] order dated 07.01.2025, dismissed the bail application on merits, after considering the fact that the petitioner has cheated several persons and an amount of Rs.6,23,000/- was deposited in his account, and that there are several other cases pending against the petitioner pertaining to the said FIR. It is also contended that complainant Kanta Chanchlani appeared before the Court on 21.04.2025 but on the said date an adjournment was sought by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also contended that the provision enshrined under Section 480(6) of BNSS are discretionary and not mandatory. The learned trial Court, while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner also observed that the petitioner is a resident of Uttrakhand and if the benefit of bail is granted than there might be a possibility that the petitioner may abscond, therefore, considering the above facts, the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2025. The conduct of the petitioner is not worthy of granting him the benefit of bail, as despite the presence of the prosecution witness Kanta Chanchlani on 21.04.2025 her deposition could not be recorded as adjournment was sought by the counsel for the petitioner. Further, apart from the present case there are several other cases registered against the petitioner and the petitioner is a resident of Uttrakhand and there exist strong apprehension that if the bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond, therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:21333] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6551/2025] 6. Accordingly, the instant second bail application filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 7. The learned trial Court shall make every endeavour to expedite the case after scrutinizing the statements of material witnesses on priority basis. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava/-23