Grant of Bail Under Section 483 BNSS in Money Doubling and Online Gambling Case: Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench’s Approach
Case Title: Umesh S/o Murari Lal v. State of Rajasthan
Date of Judgment: 06.12.2025
The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sameer Jain, decided S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14043/2025 filed by Umesh S/o Murari Lal, a 23-year-old accused who was in judicial custody in District Jail, Sawai Madhopur. The application was moved under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which confers special powers on the High Court and Court of Session in relation to bail. The order is a short but clear illustration of how the Court is applying the new BNSS framework to regular bail, particularly in economic offences involving online activity and gambling elements.
The FIR in question, being FIR No. 315/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur, invokes several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, namely Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 112(2). Alongside these, the police have added Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949. Collectively, these provisions point towards allegations of cheating through electronic means and participation in or promotion of gambling activities, with the specific allegation here relating to a “doubling of money” scheme where the amount involved is stated to be Rs. 83,000/-. The FIR has been lodged by the police authorities themselves, which suggests that the case emerged from investigative, cyber or surveillance inputs rather than a private complainant approaching the police directly.
On behalf of the accused-applicant, learned counsel emphasised three core aspects. First, the applicant’s young age—only 23 years—was highlighted as a relevant circumstance calling for a reform-oriented approach rather than prolonged incarceration at the pre-trial stage. Second, the Court was informed that the applicant had already been in custody since 14.10.2025, meaning that by the time the bail application came up for consideration, he had spent a substantial period in jail without the trial having commenced or concluded. Third, the defence pointed out that, on the prosecution’s own showing, the monetary amount involved was Rs. 83,000/-, which, though not trivial for an individual victim, is still within a limited range in the spectrum of economic offences. These submissions, taken together, were aimed at persuading the Court that continued detention would be excessive and that the purposes of investigation could be met even if the applicant were released on conditions.
The State, represented by the learned Public Prosecutors, opposed the bail application and urged the Court not to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. Although the order records this opposition in brief, without setting out detailed arguments, it can reasonably be inferred that the prosecution stressed the nature of the offences—particularly cheating using electronic means under the IT Act and gambling-related activity under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance—as well as the possibility of the accused engaging in similar activities if released. In such cases, State opposition normally rests on concerns of deterrence, the risk of repetition of the offence, and the need to send a message that online financial frauds and gambling rackets will be dealt with firmly.
After hearing both sides, the Court proceeded to analyse the case through the lens of Section 483 BNSS. This provision, titled “Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail”, enables the High Court to grant bail in appropriate cases, subject to notice to the Public Prosecutor and other statutory safeguards. In the present matter, instead of going into a detailed examination of the evidence, the Court consciously confined itself to broad factors such as the age of the accused, the duration of custody, the amount involved, and the overall circumstances. Justice Sameer Jain clearly recorded that the applicant is a young person aged 23 years, has been in custody since 14.10.2025, and that the amount alleged in the money-doubling scheme is Rs. 83,000/-. Importantly, the Court made it explicit that it was not commenting on the merits or demerits of the prosecution case at this stage.
This cautious approach is consistent with the settled principle that bail orders should not prejudge the trial or make detailed factual findings that might affect the final adjudication. Instead, the High Court focused on whether, at the present stage of proceedings, further incarceration of the applicant was necessary. Having considered the material on record, the Court came to the conclusion that the balance leaned in favour of granting bail. The reasoning reflects a broader trend in modern criminal jurisprudence, including under the BNSS, that pre-trial detention is an exception and personal liberty must be protected unless there are strong reasons to deny bail, such as risk of absconding, likelihood of tampering with evidence, or a clear threat to public order.
On the basis of this assessment, the High Court allowed the application under Section 483 BNSS and directed that the accused-applicant be enlarged on bail. The conditions imposed by the Court are standard but significant: Umesh is required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. He is obligated to appear before the concerned court on all dates of hearing as and when called upon. These conditions serve a dual function: they secure the presence of the accused during trial and also act as a reminder that bail comes with responsibilities, not as an unfettered freedom.
From a legal practitioner’s perspective, the order offers several practical takeaways. First, it confirms that under the BNSS regime, Section 483 remains a robust tool before the High Court for seeking regular bail, especially where factors such as youth, limited amount involved, and significant pre-trial custody are present. Second, even in cases involving cyber elements and gambling, the Court will not automatically treat the matter as requiring continued detention if the alleged amount is modest and the investigation does not demand the physical custody of the accused. Third, the order shows that the High Court is willing to accord weight to the rehabilitative and reformative angle for young accused persons, aligning with constitutional values of personal liberty and proportionality.
For clients and advocates dealing with similar money-doubling, online fraud or gambling prosecutions, this decision underscores the importance of carefully marshalling mitigating factors—such as age, absence of criminal history where applicable, cooperation with investigation, and the quantum involved—when approaching the High Court under Section 483 BNSS. While each case will turn on its own facts and the Court has consciously avoided any comment on guilt or innocence, the present judgment from the Jaipur Bench reinforces that bail, not jail, continues to be the governing rule, provided the accused can satisfy the Court that his release will not prejudice the fair conduct of the trial.
