[2025:RJ-JP:34183] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9072/2025 Hari Swargiyari S/o Dambaru Swargiyar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Kathalguri Harisinga, Police Station Harisinga Udalguri, Assam (Present Confined In Centre Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj., Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9382/2025 Amit Sharma @ Rahul S/o Pyaralal Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o House No. 171, Second Flor, Hargovind Enclev, Vikas Marg Extension, Anand Vihar, Police Station Anand Vihar, District Sahadara Delhi (Presently Confined In Centre Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma Mr. Gaurav Sharma For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tanay Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/08/2025 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.02/2025 registered at Cyber Police Station (ATS & SOG), District ATS & SOG for the offences punishable under Sections 66C & 66D of IT Act and Sections 111(2)(b), 111(6), 318(4), 319(2) & 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. [2025:RJ-JP:34183] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9072/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submit that complainant invested money to purchase cryptocurrency. It is further submitted that petitioners have now entered into compromise with the complainant as entire amount of money has been returned by the petitioners to the complainant. Furthermore, after considering the factum of compromise, co-accused namely- Prakash Jangid, Javid Khan and Vidit Sharma have already been granted benefit of bail by this court as well as Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submit that petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise and has no objection if facility of bail is granted to 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 parties, especially considering the fact that matter has been resolved by the parties amicably, as also the fact that after considering the factum of compromise, aforementioned co- accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by this court as well as Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period [2025:RJ-JP:34183] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9072/2025] of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1. Hari Swargiyari S/o Dambaru Swargiyar, and 2. Amit Sharma @ Rahul S/o Pyaralal Sharma, 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 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. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these instant bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /106-107