[2025:RJ-JP:12544] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2913/2025 Sakeel Son Of Jakariya, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Hajari Vas, Police Station Kaman, District Deeg. (At Present Accused- Petitioners Confined In Sub Jail Deeg) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2914/2025 Talim Son Of Akhtar, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Virar, Police Station Kaman, District Deeg. (At Present Accused Petitioners Confined In Sub Jail Deeg) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2915/2025 Tarif Son Of Mohammad, Aged About 18 Years, Resident Of Hajari Vas, Police Station Kaman, District Deeg. (At Present Accused-Petitioners Confined In Sub Jail Deeg) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/03/2025 1. These instant bail applications has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.43/2025 registered at Police Station Kaman, District Deeg (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable [2025:RJ-JP:12544] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2913/2025] under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111(2)(a) & 61(2)(a) of BNS and Section 66D of IT Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that petitioner have been arrested solely on the basis of the fact that they were using photographs of different gender as Display Picture on their WhatsApp account. Counsel submits that no private complaints have been made against the petitioners. Counsel submits that according to the impugned order, there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners. Counsel submits that petitioner are young boys and in custody since 27.01.2025. Counsel further submits that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion and further custody of the petitioners would ruin their future. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. She submits that there is great increase in such type of offences therefore, bail should not be granted to 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 no private complaint has been received by the investigation agency against the petitioners; material available on record in the shape of case diary; absence of criminal antecedents of the petitioners; period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow these bail applications. [2025:RJ-JP:12544] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2913/2025] 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- (1) Sakeel Son Of Jakariya, (2) Talim Son Of Akhtar & (3) Tarif Son Of Mohammad 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. It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station. 8. 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 them by this Court. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /208-210