[2025:RJ-JP:2332] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16383/2024 1. Riyaj Mohammad S/o Late Shri Ramjan Mohammad, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 4589, Ramganj Bahar, Jaipur North At Present House No. 18, Sharada Colony, Jaisinghpura Khor, Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor District Jaipur (North) (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jaipur). 2. Shajiya Riyaj @ Shajia Faij W/o Riyaj Mohammad D/o Faij Mohammad, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Pakistan Address House No. A/115/2400, Baitul Chundarigar, Hayderabad, Pakistan At Present Resident Of 4589, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur North At Present House No. 18, Sharada Colony, Jaisinghpura Khor, Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor Jaipur (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain with Mr. Parth Sharma, Mr. Monu Kumar, Mr. Saurabh Jain, Mr. Yatharth Agarwal and Mr. Aman Galav For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 16/01/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioners. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.429/2024 registered at Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor, District Jaipur City (North) for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:2332] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16383/2024] 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is alleged against the accused-petitioner that they despite knowing the fact that the accused-petitioner No.2 Shajiya Riyaj is a citizen of Pakistan obtained the Pan Card, Aadhar Card, Jan Aadhar Card etc. and open the account in SBI Bank. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner No.1 Riyaj Mohammad that they have been lived in India from time to time and the accused- petitioner No.1 Riyaj Mohammad is an indian citizen. It is also contended that the accused-petitioners have not forged any documents but alleged to furnish false information to the authorities concerned. The accused-petitioners are in custody since long and trial/investigation of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused- petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted the factual report. The same is taken on record. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case, it is not denied that the accused-petitioner No.1 Riyaj Mohammad is married to the accused-petitioner No.2 Shajiya Riyaj, who is a Pakistani citizen, it is also not denied that the accused-petitioner No.2 Shajiya Riyaj resided with the accused- petitioner No.1 Riyaj Mohammad in India from time to time and the accused-petitioner No.2 Shajiya Riyaj is residing in India on the basis of extended permit granted by competent authority. 6. Considering the above facts and taking into consideration [2025:RJ-JP:2332] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16383/2024] that the accused-petitioners are in custody since long and trial/investigation of the case may take considerable time, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely: 1. Riyaj Mohammad S/o Late Shri Ramjan Mohammad and 2. Shajiya Riyaj @ Shajia Faij W/o Riyaj Mohammad D/o Faij Mohammad in connection with FIR No.429/2024 registered at Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor, District Jaipur City (North) shall be enlarged on bail provided both of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. The accused-petitioner No.2 Shajiya Riyaj @ Shajia Faij would surrender her passport before the trial Court and she would not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/290