[2025:RJ-JP:13852] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3893/2025 Avinash Sharma Alias Sablu S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Gadhi Thoriyan, Gopal Nagar, Beawar, Police Station, Beawar City District Beawar At Present Lodged In The District Jail, Jhalawar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP Mr. Anubodh Subodh Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 26/03/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.418/2024 registered at Police Station Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) & 61(2)(a) of BNS. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He argues that the alleged offences are triable by magistrate for which maximum punishment is seven years. Counsel submits that dispute involved in this matter is of civil nature. Counsel submits [2025:RJ-JP:13852] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3893/2025] that there are business relationship between the petitioner and the complainant. Counsel submits that petitioner has no intention to cheat the complainant but in order to take undue advantage and create pressure upon the petitioner, the complainant has launched criminal prosecution against the petitioner. Counsel relies upon the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.3020/2024 titled as Radheyshyam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Counsel submits that co- accused Bhumika Sharma has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 18.11.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that undoubtedly, there was business relationship between the petitioner and complainant but that does not mean that for commission of forgery and criminal breach of trust, petitioner cannot be prosecuted. It is argued that during investigation, it has been come out that till date, a total sum of Rs.2,90,00,000/- (Two Crores Ninety Lakhs Rupees) by way of different transactions, was received by the petitioner but in lieu thereof, no goods were supplied by him to the complainant. During investigation, the petitioner failed to produce any receipt showing that goods were supplied by the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner prepared and gave forged bills to the complainant. Initially, the petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:13852] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3893/2025] very cunningly won trust/faith of the complainant but later on, after receiving big amount of money, the petitioner played fraud with the complainant and did not make supply of the goods. They thus pray that bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties; the nature of allegations and manner of the alleged commission of crime and considering allegation that despite receipt of Rs.2,90,00,000/- (Two Crores Ninety Lakhs Rupees) from the complainant by way of different transactions, no goods were supplied by the petitioner to the complainant, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. Since the alleged offences are triable by magistrate, the petitioner would be at liberty to file fresh bail application before the learned trial court under the provisions of Section 437(6) CrPC (480 BNSS). 5. The observations made herein are only decision of this bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN ), J LALIT MOHAN /66