[2025:RJ-JP:38765] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 11238/2025 Swapan Purkit C/o Dino Purkit, Aged About 29 Years, Address-1 James Long Sarani New Alipore Hal Chungar Bhawan Auto Stand Mangalpara , Police Station Hardevpur, Kolkata -West Bangal India (At Present Confined In Centre Jai Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/09/2025 1. This third bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.121/2024 registered at Police Station Banipark, District Jaipur (West) (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 66D of Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2000. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC and Section 66D of Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2000. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 16.12.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail under the [2025:RJ-JP:38765] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11238/2025] provisions of Section 480(6) of BNSS (corresponding to Section 437(6) of Cr.PC). Thereafter, second bail application was filed on behalf of the petitioner however, same was also dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 06.08.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the learned trial Court under the provisions of Section 480(6) of BNSS at appropriate stage. Now, this third bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that charge was framed against the petitioner on 18.02.2025 and first date for recording the prosecution evidence was fixed on 31.05.2025. Counsel submits that since then, only two witnesses have been examined out of fourteen cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel submits that more than three months have passed after fixing the first date for recording the prosecution evidence. Counsel submits that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and under the provisions of Section 480(6) of BNSS, it is mandatory for the trial Court to record its reason in writing when refusing the bail application of an accused. Counsel submits that bare perusal of the order passed by learned Magistrate would reveal that delay is not attributed to the petitioner. Counsel submits that one other case has also been registered against the petitioner wherein he is on bail. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is contended that petitioner is in custody since 16.08.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. [2025:RJ-JP:38765] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11238/2025] 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. 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 till date, only two witnesses have been examined out of fourteen cited prosecution witnesses and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this third bail application. 7. This third bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Swapan Purkit C/o Dino Purkit 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. 8. 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 police station. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to [2025:RJ-JP:38765] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11238/2025] mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 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. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /37