[2025:RJ-JP:39936] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12404/2025 1. Mohammad Shahil S/o Irshaad Ahmed, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Kolhuwa Dargah, Police Station Mairwa, District Siwaan, Bihar 2. Junaid Ahmed S/o Najer Ahmed, Aged About 24 Years, R/ o Village Kolhuwa Dargah, Police Station Mairwa, District Siwaan, Bihar (Presently, Accused-Petitioners Are Confined At Central Jail, Jail) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Misha Sharma for Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. Ms. Riya Singh Chauhan and Ms. Ananya Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 26/09/2025 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.150/2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Police Station, Commissionerate Jaipur, District Jaipur for Offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 316(2) & 61(2)(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023 and Sections 66C & 66D of I.T. Act (Amended), 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:39936] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12404/2025] Learned counsel submits that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is submitted that parties have resolved their dispute amicably. Learned counsel contends that one other case has been registered against petitioner- Mohammad Shahil for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 379, 504 and 34 of IPC whereas there are no criminal antecedents against petitioner- Junaid. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioners are in custody since 09.09.2025 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise. 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 parties have resolved their dispute amicably 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 proper to allow the bail application. 7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – (1) Mohammad Shahil S/o Irshaad Ahmed, and (2) Junaid Ahmed S/o Najer Ahmed, shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond [2025:RJ-JP:39936] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12404/2025] 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. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of this bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /264