[2025:RJ-JP:36020] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8234/2025 1. Sushil Son Of Jeet Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Raswada, Police Station Naugaon, District Alwar (Ra- jasthan) ( At Present Confined In District Jail Alwar) 2. Sahil Son Of Ayub, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Roopbas, Police Station Naugaon, District Alwar (Ra- jasthan) ( At Present Confined In District Jail Alwar) 3. Ajrudeen Son Of Ayub Khan, Aged About 24 Years, Resi- dent Of Roopbas, Police Station Naugaon, District Alwar (Rajasthan) ( At Present Confined In District Jail Alwar) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/09/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.229/2025 registered at Police Station Nouganwa, District Alwar (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(b), 319(2), 318(4), 336(3) & 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Section 66D of Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. [2025:RJ-JP:36020] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8234/2025] Counsel submits that there is no private complaint against the petitioners and they have been made accused simply on the basis of the fact that some social media Apps have been found in their mobile phones. Counsel submits that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He argues that the petitioners are in custody since 09.06.2025 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 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 petitioners, as also the fact that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter; there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners; trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, 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-petitioners -(1) Sushil Son Of Jeet Singh, (2) Sahil Son Of Ayub & (3) Ajrudeen Son Of Ayub Khan shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 [2025:RJ-JP:36020] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8234/2025] with the stipulation that they 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-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. 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 them by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. The observations made hereinabove are only for 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 LALIT MOHAN /88