[2025:RJ-JP:14352] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 3668/2025 Rajesh Goyal S/o Shri Badriprasad Goyal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Sarmathura, Badi, District Dholpur, At Present Tenant House No. 3/44, First Floor, SFS, Masarovar, Police Station Shiprapath, Jaipur (Accused In Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brahmanand Sandu, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sandu, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, Public Prosecutor. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 27/03/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the accused petitioner in connection with FIR No.115/2024, registered at Police Station Jalupura, District Jaipur City (North) for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and with the averment that the accused-petitioner is behind the bars since 29.05.2024 and trial will take long time. 2. It is contended that the matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate, charge sheet has already been produced and trial court has framed the charges against the petitioner and other co- accused. The trial is proceeding with the snail pace manner and after submission of the charge-sheet, no witnesses have been [2025:RJ-JP:14352] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3668/2025] examined. It is also contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Manish Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (Special Leave to Appeal [Crl.] No.10185/2024, decided on 11.11.2024, allowed the bail application under Section 420 & 406 of IPC, after considering the incarceration of 5 months in jail. In the present case, the petitioner is behind the bars since more than 6 months. The first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed on 25.11.2024 and since then the trial has not been proceeded, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2024 and thereafter no change in circumstance has taken place. The accused-petitioner was involved in three similar nature of cases, therefore, second bail application of the accused- petitioner, deserves dismissal. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. In the first bail application, the Court has observed that the accused-petitioner in connivance with the other co-accused Chetan Sharma and Beena Sharma, sold the property through registered sale deed to Prem Surana and Anshu Surana knowingly that Beena Sharma was not having any title over the land. The Court also observed that the petitioner Rajesh Goyal received the amount of Rs.35,00,000/- in his account from Chetan Sharma, further, eleven signed cheques of Chetan Sharma and several cheque books were recovered from the petitioner’s possession. [2025:RJ-JP:14352] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3668/2025] 6. Thereafter the trial court has proceeded and framed the charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and also proceeded to summon the witnesses. The maximum punishment provided under Section 467 IPC is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years or fine; under Section 468 IPC is upto 7 years and fine. Similarly, under Section 420 of IPC the maximum punishment is imprisonment for 7 years and fine. The allegation against the accused-petitioner is grave. The accused-petitioner was involved in similar nature of three other cases, therefore, considering the facts and conduct of the accused-petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant second bail application of the accused-petitioner, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/86 23