[2025:RJ-JP:38443] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11622/2025 1. Junaid S/o Idris, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Bela, Police Station Sikari, District Deeg. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg) 2. Munsaraf @ Nittu S/o Mubin, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Jhanjhar, Police Station Sikari, District Deeg. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gurvindra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/09/2025 1. This instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.91/2025 registered at Police Station Sikari, District Deeg for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 303(2), 111(2)(a), 313 & 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’), 2023 and Section 66D of I.T. (Amended) Act, 2008. During the course of investigation, offence punishable under section 111(2) of BNS has also been added. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that no complaint has been made against the [2025:RJ-JP:38443] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11622/2025] petitioners by any private person. It is submitted that petitioners have been made accused in this case simply on the basis of the fact that some applications were found in their mobile phones. It is submitted that prima facie, offence under Section 111(2) of BNS, 2023 is not made out. It is submitted that other co-accused persons namely Robin, Waris, Sekul & Vajid have been granted benefit of bail by this court. Learned counsel contends that petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and there are no criminal antecedents against them. 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. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; especially considering the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, as also the fact that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion and aforementioned co- accused persons have been granted bail by this court 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 this bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Junaid S/o Idris & (2) Munsaraf @ Nittu S/o Mubin, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:38443] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11622/2025] 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. 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, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners, as directed above. In case the petitioners fail to mark their 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 them by this Court. 11. The observations made hereinabove is only for the decision of these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /44