Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/5507/2026 of LEELARAM S/O RAMBABU Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 15 April 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 5507/2026 Leelaram S/o Rambabu, aged about 25 years, R/o Chulhaira Police Station Khoh, District Deeg. (At present accused is confined in District Jail Deeg). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan,
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 5507/2026
Leelaram S/o Rambabu, aged about 25 years, R/o Chulhaira Police Station Khoh, District Deeg. (At present accused is confined in District Jail Deeg).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Arafat Hussain
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
15/04/2026
1. The present second bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No.04/2026 registered at Police Station Khoh, District Deeg for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 61(2)(a), 303(2), 308(2), 313, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338 & 340(2) of BNS and Section(s) 66-D of IT Act.
2. The first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file fresh bail application after filing of the charge-sheet.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offences. He further submits that investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and accused-petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-5507/2026] Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.01.2026 and no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. He further submits conclusion of the trial will take considerably long time, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner into custody, therefore, pray to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the said offences involve serious cyber fraud activity. He further submits that there is one complaint against petitioner- Leelaram on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. Hence, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner.
5. Taking into consideration the overall facts & circumstances of the case; the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, the fact that charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, petitioner has been in custody since long and trial will take considerably long time in its conclusion, thus, without commenting anything upon the merits / demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.
6. Therefore, this second bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and the accused-petitioner, namely Leelaram S/o Rambabu, is ordered to be released on bail, provided, he 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 petitioner shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-5507/2026]
7. The accused - petitioner is directed to mark his presence before the concerned Police Station in the 1st week of every month till conclusion of trial. The SHO of the concerned Police Station shall forward petitioner’s attendance report to the trial Court on the same day of each month.
8. In case of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be at liberty to move an application against the petitioner for cancellation of bail before the concerned Court.
9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J AVINASH GULERIA /1