[2025:RJ-JP:44967] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10063/2025 Tarif @ Talim Son Of Chakmal, Resident Of Dunaval, Police Station Nagar, District Deeg (Raj) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg) ----Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rahul Sinsinwar Mr. Adarsh Singhal, Amicus Curiae For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG with Ms. Neeti Jain Bhandari & Mr. Harshvardhan Katara Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA cum AAG with Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Aman Agarwal, PP Mr. Rajeev Sharma, DGP, (through VC) Mr. Sachin Mittal, Commissioner of Police Mr. Manish Agrawal, Add. C. P. Jaipur Mr. Vikas, DIG Cyber Mr. Shantanu SP Cyber HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order Reserved on 28/10/2025 Pronounced on 11 /11/2025 1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 482 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 197/2024 registered at Police Station Nagar District Deeg for the offence(s) under Sections 219(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(5), 303(2), 61(2)(a), 313 of BNS, 2023 & 66D of IT (Amendment) Act, 2008. 2. Learned counsel for the accused–applicant had submitted that the applicant is a young man who has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was contended that the complaint was not [2025:RJ-JP:44967] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10063/2025] instituted by any victim or complainant, and that the proceedings are based merely on presumption and assumption, unsupported by cogent evidence. It was further submitted that the applicant bears no criminal antecedents and has been implicated solely on the basis of the statements of co-accused persons recorded during investigation. It is also submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since March–April, 2025, and that the offences alleged are triable by the Court of a Magistrate. 3. Per contra, learned Amicus Curiae, learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, and the concerned Officer (appeared through video conferencing) have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It was submitted that, considering the gravity and nature of the offences, any leniency at this stage would frustrate the course of investigation and send an adverse signal in matters concerning cyber offences. It was urged that, in the event the applicant is to be enlarged on bail, stringent and deterrent conditions must necessarily be imposed. 4. It was further submitted that the applicant has been actively involved in organized cyber criminal activities in connivance with co-accused persons, wherein fraudulent impersonation was carried out through the use of fabricated SIM cards, bank accounts, and QR codes. The proceeds of the crime were allegedly siphoned off through mule accounts. It was also contended that the applicant remained absconding for a considerable period of time, thereby obstructing the course of investigation, and that the case involves serious allegations having inter-State ramifications. [2025:RJ-JP:44967] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10063/2025] 5. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, as well as the material available on record, and taking note of the observations recorded in the lead case S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9343 of 2025 (the said order be treated as part and parcel of the present order), this Court in consonance with the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prashant Singh Rajput v. State of Madhya Pradesh : Crl. Appeal No. 001202/2021, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement: (2019) 9 SCC 24, Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and anr. (2025 INSC 588) is of the opinion that the present case does not fall within the parameters warranting the exercise of discretion under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail. Nevertheless, the allegations levelled are grave in nature; the investigation is still underway; and no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances have been demonstrated by the applicant to justify grant of anticipatory relief at this stage; that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of the co- accused persons, whose applications for regular bail were considered on a different factual footing. 6. Accordingly, and in light of the general observations recorded in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9343/2025, the ratio passed in Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to forged Documents: [Suo moto writ petition (criminal) No. 3/2025], the instant bail application filed under Section 482 of BNSS, stands dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/s-285