[2025:RJ-JP:8136] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2239/2025 Deepak S/o Hansraj, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Karela, Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur. (At Present Confined In District Jail, Sawai Madhopur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 24/02/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.14/2025 registered at Police Station Rawanjna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023, Sections 66C, 66D of IT Act, 2008 and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is also evident from the case diary that no private person has made any complaint against the petitioner. He has been made an accused in this case solely on the basis of some applications found on his mobile phone. He contends that there [2025:RJ-JP:8136] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2239/2025] are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial of the case will take considerable time. He argues that the petitioner is in custody since 01.02.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as also looking to the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Deepak S/o Hansraj shall be released on bail provided he 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 the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he 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-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned [2025:RJ-JP:8136] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2239/2025] police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his 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. 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 him by this Court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/232