[2025:RJ-JP:50639] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No.16223/2025 Narender Kumar S/o Sahabram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No.6, VPO Kishanpura Dhiknada 22 S.S.W., Police Station Hanumangarh Town District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Is Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bhidasra, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 16/12/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.304/2023, registered at Police Station Alwar Gate, District Ajmer for the offence(s) under Sections 420 of IPC. 2. The petitioner has moved the second bail application on the ground that the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed with liberty to file afresh after filing of the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act has already been filed. It is further contended that the petitioner was arrested on 23.07.2025 and the matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate. It is also contended that the petitioner did not use his bank account for the alleged offence and furnished information [2025:RJ-JP:50639] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16223/2025] to the Investigating Officer that his account was handed over to another person. The petitioner has not misused his account, he is an illiterate person and misled by the other co-accused, which allegedly resulted in the commission of cyber offence. It is further contended that the petitioner is the sole breadearner of his family and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, considering the above circumstances, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail application and contended that the petitioner committed cyber fraud against the complainant and an amount of ₹62,777/- was deposited in the petitioner's bank account. It is further contended that the investigation has revealed that as many as 24 complaints and 6 FIRs have been registered against the petitioner across the country. The investigation also discloses that a huge amount was found credited in the petitioner’s bank account. It is further contended that, although the petitioner disclosed during investigation that his bank account was used by another person, he failed to disclose the name of the said person who allegedly misused the petitioner’s account. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the second bail application filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the fact that a huge amount was transferred into the petitioner’s bank account and that as many as 24 complaints and 6 FIRs have been registered against him alleging commission of cyber offences, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. However, having regard to the fact that [2025:RJ-JP:50639] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16223/2025] the charge-sheet lists only seven prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to record the evidence of the witnesses, preferably within a period of six months from today. 6. With the above directions, the second bail application stands disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-2