[2025:RJ-JP:7570] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1517/2025 Vimlendu S/o Ratindra Mohan, Aged About 42 Years, R/o House No. 104, Panchwati Colony, Mawana Road, Police Station Incholi, Tehsil Meerut, At Present R/o A-187, Ritikunj Vedvyas Puri, Police Station Pratappur, Opp. Shubharti Medical University, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2564/2025 Madhusudan S/o Shri Rishi Kumar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 217 Citi Ka Bas, Nimbark Tirath, Salemabad, Police Station Roopangarh, District Ajmer. (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Jaya Mitra Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/02/2025 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.0041/2024 registered at Special Police Station (S.O.G.), District ATS & SOG, Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC [2025:RJ-JP:7570] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1517/2025] and Section 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. 2. Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Jaya Mitra submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and same are based on documents which are in possession of investigation agency. Counsel further submits that the petitioner-Vimlendu is in custody since 05.08.2024. Charge-sheet has already been filed and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Trial of the case will take considerable time. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Madhusudan submits that the petitioner has been made accused on the basis of fact that he was in contact with the co-accused-Hitesh Bhadu, who has been granted bail by this Court. He is in custody since 15.01.2025. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. He further submits that certificate issued in favour of the petitioners has been found genuine in the investigation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner- Madhusudan. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. 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 petitioners, especially the fact that offences are triable by Magistrate; custody period as well as the fact that similarly situated co-accused Hitesh Bhadu has been granted bail; but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I [2025:RJ-JP:7570] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1517/2025] deem it fit and proper to allow these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Vimlendu S/o Ratindra Mohan, (2) Madhusudan S/o Shri Rishi Kumar shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 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. 7. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioners are further directed to mark their presence in the concerned police station once in three months, till trial is concluded. If breach of any 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 petitioners by this Court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Sunita/29-30