[2026:RJ-JP:4225] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15955/2025 Vikram Singh S/o Ram Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Sarsop, Police Station Chauth Ka Barwara, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Sawai Madhopur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 13/01/2026 1. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.224/2025 registered at Police Station Choth ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur, for offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this case. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that FIR No. 29/2025 was earlier registered against the petitioner at the same police station for identical offences. It is contended that the allegations levelled in the subsequent FIR arise out of the [2026:RJ-JP:4225] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15955/2025] same set of facts which have already been dealt with in the earlier FIR, rendering the subsequent proceedings impermissible. It is submitted that benefit of bail has been granted to the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR by Co-ordinate bench of this Court. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 19.11.2025 and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that the earlier FIR was registered against the petitioner during a blockade (nakabandi) conducted by the police party whereas the impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of cyber complaints pertaining to the petitioner’s bank account, in which a total amount of Rs. 49,00,000/- is stated to have been transferred by several persons. He further submits that the petitioner has misused the liberty of bail, as a similar offence is alleged to have been committed subsequent to his release on bail by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. Thus, looking to the nature of offence, benefit of bail may not be extended to the petitioner. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of his arrest in the earlier FIR, the petitioner had furnished his bank account details to the police party, and same is now being used to falsely implicate him in the present case. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially [2026:RJ-JP:4225] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15955/2025] considering the material available on record, as also the fact that number of cyber complaints pertaining to the petitioner’s bank account have been registered on cyber portal and as such the petitioner is involved in cyber fraud resulting in the defrauding of several persons as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. However, petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the learned trial Court under Section 480(6) of BNSS (Corresponding to Section 437(6) of Cr.PC), if trial is not completed within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for recording the prosecution’ witnesses. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN/38