Rajasthan HC Grants Bail As IO Admits Cheque Books Were Unused And No Evidence Shows Accused Used ATM Cards, Orders Inquiry Into Alleged IO Negligence

The petitioner was arrested on 10 December 2025 in connection with FIR No. 653/2025, registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur City (East), and was charge-sheeted on 13 March 2026.

His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to apply afresh; his second application was dismissed after he approached the High Court without first moving the Sessions Court.

This third application concerned allegations under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as well as Sections 66(C) and 67(D) of the Information Technology Act.

The prosecution relied on the recovery of six cheque-books and four ATM cards.

The investigating officer acknowledged that the cheque-books were blank and unsigned, had not been used, and that there was no evidence the petitioner used the ATM cards or withdrew money through them; relevant persons’ statements and bank records had not been obtained.

The application was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The Court considered the charged offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alongside Sections 66(C) and 67(D) of the Information Technology Act.

It held that the mere recovery of cheque-books or ATM cards, without evidence of their use or of a resulting dishonest withdrawal or cheating, did not by itself establish the alleged cheating or forgery offences; assertions in a charge-sheet unsupported by evidence gathered in the investigation do not, by themselves, establish an offence.

The investigating officer’s concessions left no evidence that the petitioner had used the cards, withdrawn funds, or used the blank, unsigned cheque-books; the investigation had also failed to obtain relevant bank statements or record statements from the persons concerned.

The Court therefore found no prima facie evidential basis for the alleged cheating or forgery, and considered that the possibility of future use of the recovered items was insufficient to establish those offences.

It further held that the existence of other FIRs, without material supporting the alleged conduct in this case, did not by itself justify refusing bail.

The identified investigative omissions also led the Court to direct the DGP to initiate a preliminary inquiry.

The petitioner must mark his presence at the concerned police station on the 25th of each month, provide his current address and mobile number within seven days of release, and promptly report any changes; breach may be raised in an application for cancellation of bail.

The Court also directed that a copy of the order be sent to the DGP for a preliminary inquiry into the investigating officers’ alleged negligence and for further action if warranted under the applicable conduct rules.