Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/16012/2025 of TALIM S/O DAUD Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 16 February 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16012/2025 1. Talim S/o Daud, aged about 19 Years, R/o Ghaghwadi, Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg (Rajasthan) 2. Varis S/o Shaukat, aged about 22 Years, R/o Ghaghwadi, Police Station Kaithwada,
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16012/2025
1.
Talim S/o Daud, aged about 19 Years, R/o Ghaghwadi, Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg (Rajasthan)
2.
Varis S/o Shaukat, aged about 22 Years, R/o Ghaghwadi, Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg (Rajasthan)
(At Present Accused Petitioners Confined in Sub Jail Deeg).
---Accused-Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Aslam S. Khan
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
16/02/2026
1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.193/2025 registered at Police Station Kaithwara, District Deeg for offence(s) under Section(s) 303(2), 317(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)(a) of B.N.S. and Section 66-D of IT Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused- petitioners are young boys of 19 and 22 years respectively and have been falsely implicated in this case as they have nothing to do with the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that the offences are triable by Magistrate; the petitioners are in custody since 14.11.2025, they have no criminal antecedent and only one complaint has been registered against petitioner No. 1 &
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-16012/2025] two complaints have been registered against petitioner No. 2 on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP). He also submits that no recovery is required to be made from the petitioners; the charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter and trial will take considerably long time in its conclusion, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody, hence, they may be enlarged on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.
4. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, the fact that the offences are triable by Magistrate, charge-sheet has already been filed and conclusion of trial will take considerable long time, without commenting anything on the merits / demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
5. Therefore, this bail application is allowed and accused- petitioners namely, (1) Talim S/o Daud and (2) Varis S/o Shaukat 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.
6. The accused - petitioners are directed to mark their presence before the concerned Police Station on the 5th date of every month till conclusion of trial. The SHO of the concerned Police Station
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-16012/2025] shall forward petitioners' attendance report to the trial Court on the same day of each month. 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.
7. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J TN/7