[2026:RJ-JP:23539] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5924/2026 Vikram Singh @ Vicky S/o Shri Satyanarain Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Harsoti, P.s Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur. (Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6884/2026 Kansingh Kothyari S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, R/o Gaon Harsoti, P.s Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur. (Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6885/2026 Bhagwan Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Palaai, Police Station Uniyara, District Tonk. (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Joshi, Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary, Ms. Bharti Singh, Mr. Shashank Shekhar Pachauri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, P.P. Mr. Mahesh Chandra, SHO Jawahar Circle [2026:RJ-JP:23539] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5924/2026] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA (V. J.) Order 24/06/2026 1. These bail applications have been filed by the accused- petitioners under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in connection with FIR No. 591/2025, dated 07.11.2025 registered with the Police Station, Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur City (East) for offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of B.N.S., 2023. 2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further, after completion of the investigation, police has submitted charge-sheet against them and the petitioners are no more required for recovery or interrogation, therefore, learned counsel prays that petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor alongwith the Investigating Officer strongly oppose the bail applications and submit that the conduct of the petitioners is serious in nature as they ported mobile SIM of the complainant without his permission, created UPI ID by using that SIM and downloaded the online payment applications and got money transferred as alleged in the FIR in their bank accounts as well as of their relatives. Therefore, learned Public Prosecutor contends that they are not entitled to be enlarged on bail by this Court. 4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and Investigating Officer. [2026:RJ-JP:23539] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5924/2026] 5. This Court, after considering the contents of the FIR, noted that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused-petitioners herein also indicates the commission of offence under the relevant sections of the I.T. Act, 2000, however, neither in the FIR nor in charge-sheet those sections have been added. On being asked from the concerned Investigating Officer why sections of the I.T. Act, 2000 have not been mentioned. 6. It was stated that the concerned SHO, who was holding the post at that time directed not mention the sections. This act of the officer is serious in nature and appears to be intentional. In disregard to the fact that DG Cyber as well as DCP Rajasthan has issued specific orders for registering FIR under the provisions of I.T. Act and to take serious action in accordance with law, this Court noted that despite such orders, the SHO’s are not registering FIR in the sections of I.T. Act, 2000 which appears to be serious in nature. 7. Considering the nature of allegations and also the fact that charge-sheets have been filed by the concerned officer against the accused-petitioners which appears to be serious in nature. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused- petitioners on bail. 8. The DCP concerned is to conduct an inquiry in regard to the FIR registered and non-mentioning of the sections of the I.T. Act intentionally and submit a report to this Court. In case, in the report it is found that the sections of the I.T. Act were intentionally not mentioned, necessary action will be taken against the SHO and/or responsible person in accordance with law. [2026:RJ-JP:23539] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5924/2026] 9. In view of the above, the bail applications are hereby dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be separately sent to the office of DCP East, Jaipur for the compliance. (RAVI CHIRANIA (V. J.)),J 189 to 191/SHRUTI SHARMA