Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/6333/2026 of ANSAR S/O SORAB Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 27 April 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6333/2026 1. Ansar S/o Sorab, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Chhapra, Police Station Pahari, District Deeg (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Deeg). 2. Sharoop S/o Faqruddin, Aged
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6333/2026
1.
Ansar S/o Sorab, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Chhapra, Police Station Pahari, District Deeg (Rajasthan)
(At Present Confined In District Jail, Deeg).
2.
Sharoop S/o Faqruddin, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Bhonri, Police Station Pahari, District Deeg (Rajatshan)
(At Present Confined In District Jail, Deeg).
3.
Dilshad S/o Shokat, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Sanvler, Police Station Pahari, District Deeg. (Rajasthan)
(At Present Confined In District Jail, Deeg).
----Accused-Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Hemendra Goyal
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
27/04/2026
1. This second bail application has been filed by the accused- petitioners under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No.21/2026 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Deeg for offence(s) under Section(s) 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)(a) BNS and Section 66-D of IT Act.
2. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, after filing of charge-sheet.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have nothing to do with the alleged offences. Learned counsel further
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-6333/2026] submits that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in this case and petitioners are not required for further custodial interrogation. 3.1 Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent; the petitioners are in custody since 18.01.2026 and no recovery is required to be made from them; therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody, hence, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the said offences involve serious cyber fraud activity. He further submits that there are four complaints against petitioner Ansar and one complaint each against Sharoop and Dilshad on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. Hence, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioners.
5. In response thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the complaints against the petitioners are false, moreover, in the complaints against Ansar, Sharoop and Dilshad, a meagre amount of Rs.48000/-, Rs.44000/- and Rs.5000/- respectively, is involved.
6. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case; considering the rival arguments, the fact that investigation has been completed; charge-sheet has been filed, petitioners are in custody since long and conclusion of trial will take considerable long time, without commenting anything on the
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-6333/2026] merits / demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
7. Therefore, this second bail application is allowed and accused-petitioners (1) Ansar S/o Sorab (2) Sharoop S/o Faqruddin and (3) Dilshad S/o Shokat are ordered to be released on bail, provided, each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the stipulation that the petitioners shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
8. The accused-petitioners are directed to mark their presence before the concerned Police Station in the third week of every month till conclusion of trial. The SHO of the concerned Police Station shall forward petitioners' attendance report to the trial Court on the same day of each month.
9. In case of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be at liberty to move an application against the petitioners for cancellation of bail before the concerned Court.
10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SKS/1