[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pramod Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:15234) on 2 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:15234]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 456/2026
Pramod Sharma S/o Shri Lekhraj Sharma, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of Gali No. 2, Rampura Basti, Bikaner, Police Station-
Muktaprasad Nagar, Bikaner, District Bikaner. (At Present Lodged
In Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
02/04/2026
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. at the instance of
accused-applicant. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated
herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Gangashahar
3. District Bikaner
4. Offences alleged in the FIR 75(2), 77, 78(2), 79 &
351(2) of BNS 2023 and
66(C), 66(D), 67(A) of I.T.
Act.
5. Date of passing of impugned 07.01.2026
order
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR in
question has been registered against applicant upon a written
complaint being submitted by the complainant before the Court of
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 09:35:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15234] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-456/2026]
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4 alleging that applicant
has uploaded edited inappropriate / obscene photographs of
complainant with a view to harass the applicant and to malign her.
It is stated that applicant has been falsely implicated in the
present case as on an earlier occasion also the complainant has
registered a case against the applicant, which was settled by way
of compromise for which the complainant has taken amount from
the applicant. Learned counsel stated that challan has already
been filed and that the trial is likely to take a long time to
conclude, thus prayed that accused-applicant may be enlarged on
bail.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
applicant, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application
and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of
accused on bail as the offences involved in the present case are of
serious nature. It is contended that cyber offences of like nature
against women are increasing multifold, lenient treatment should
not be extended to the applicant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. In consideration of overall facts and circumstances of this
case, it clearly appears that accused-applicant and victim were
having old acquaintances and previously shared cordial
relationship, which also involved financial dealings between them.
At some subsequent stage, dispute arose regarding financial
transactions, leading to the filing of earlier FIR which was settled
by way of compromise. It is also alleged in the FIR that on demand
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 09:35:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15234] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-456/2026]
being made by complainant for refund of Rs.50,000/- given as
loan, the morphed photographs were uploaded on Instagram
account of accused applicant. Taking into consideration their prior
financial dealings and the ensuing dispute over money, the
apprehension cannot be ruled out that the case may have been
registered with exaggerated allegations and by manipulating the
facts. The truthfulness / genuinity / veracity of the photographs
alleged to be uploaded on Instagram account said to be of
accused, will be established during the course of trial after
recording of evidence. This Court also considers that apart from
the offence under Section 66 all other offences are triable by
Magistrate.
6. Since challan has already been filed and conclusion of trial is
likely to take its own considerable long time, coupled with the fact
that applicant has been behind bars since 04.01.2026, this Court
is of considered opinion that no useful purpose will be served by
his continued detention. Thus, this Court deems it appropriate to
grant the benefit of bail to the applicant in the present matter.
7. Accordingly, instant bail application filed under Section 483
B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-applicant
Pramod Sharma S/o Shri Lekhraj Sharma shall be enlarged 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 learned trial Judge for his appearance before the
court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called
upon to do so.
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 09:35:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15234] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-456/2026]
8. The accused-applicant is also directed to mark his presence
on 25th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned
Police Station. SHO of the concerned Police Station shall send the
presence report of the accused-applicant to learned trial Court
every month. In case of any breach to the above condition,
learned counsel for the State shall be free to move the application
against the accused-applicant for cancellation of bail before
concerned Magistrate.
9. Copy of this order also be sent to concerned SHO for
compliance.
10. Needless to mention that the above observations made by
this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the
Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall
however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take
independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral
evidence, while finally deciding the case.
11. It is made clear that in the event the accused-applicant is
found to be involved in any offence of a similar nature in future or
is found to have misused the liberty granted by this Court, it shall
be open for learned Public Prosecutor to move an appropriate
application for cancellation of bail, which shall be considered in
accordance with law.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
22-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 09:35:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
