[2026:RJ-JP:12411] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1934/2026 Mohammad Ashab Ansari S/o Mohd. Aleem Ansari, Aged 25 years, R/o Gondlitand Patwabad, Police Station Madhupur, Dis- trict Devdhar, Jharkhand, (At present confined in Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohammed Zubeir with Mr. Rizwan Alam Khan & Mr. Yunush Khan For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Ankur Saxena HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 24/03/2026 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.187/2023 registered at Police Station Special Crime and Cyber Crime Police Station Commissionerate Jaipur, District Deputy Commissioner of Police Crime Commissionerate Jaipur (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 406 & 120B of IPC and Sections 43, 66, 66C & 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. Counsel submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of inducing the complainant to transfer money. Counsel submits that it is evident from the charge-sheet that no amount has been [2026:RJ-JP:12411] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1934/2026] transferred in the bank account of the petitioner. Counsel submits that other co-accused namely Sambuddha Kayal has already been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He argues that the petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the complainant submits that as per charge- sheet there is allegation against the petitioner of withdrawing the amount from ATM. It is also evident from the charge-sheet that a complaint of cyber fraud related to the bank account of the petitioner has been registered on cyber portal. 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 parties, especially considering the fact that the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate, as also the fact that co-accused namely Sambuddha Kayal has already been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. The bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Mohammad Ashab Ansari S/o Mohd. [2026:RJ-JP:12411] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1934/2026] Aleem Ansari shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station once in every two months, till conclusion of the trial. 8. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. 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 breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. 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 /64