Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17004 (RAJ)

ARUN DAS S/O MANGILAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/5623/2025 · 2025-08-08

Praveer Bhatnagar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:30679] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5623/2025 Arun Das S/o Mangilal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Tivri, Police Station Osian, District Jodhpur (Rural), Currently Residing At Railway D.s. Colony, Jodhpur Police Station Shashtri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Is Confined In District Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora Mr. Aamir Harun For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 08/08/2025 The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 78/2022 registered at Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur Rural for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that for the same offence co-seller Shankar S/o Mahadev has also submitted an FIR against the petitioner in respect of the same sale deed executed on 18.07.2002 and for the same document another co-seller i.e. present complainant Dhapa Devi against the petitioner lodged this subsequent FIR for the same offence, is not maintainable. It is also contended that in the FIR registered by Shankar S/o Mahadev, a coordinate Bench of this court vide order [2025:RJ-JP:30679] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-5623/2025] 01.08.2025, passed in SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3214/2025, enlarged the petitioner on bail. The accused petitioner is in custody since 23.02.2025 and the trial of the case will take considerable time. The charge-sheet against the accused- petitioner has already been submitted before the concerned court, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused- petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail application. Heard and perused the material available on the record. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted before the concerned court. The accused petitioner is in custody since 23.02.2025 and the trial of the case will take considerable time, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Arun Das S/o Mangilal, in connection with FIR No. 78/2022 registered at Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur Ruralshall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /97