[2025:RJ-JP:35152] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5972/2025 Rakesh Kumar Saini S/o Late Sh. Hardev Saini, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Jeeva Ki Dhani, Krana, The Narayanpur, Police Station Basdyal, District Alwar (Raj.) (Currently Lodged At Central Jail Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6782/2025 Rishabh Sharma S/o Shri Ashok Sharma, R/o House No. 25/100, Saket Colony, Hindaun City, Police Station Nai Mandi, Hindaun City, District Karauli. At Present Tenant House No. 88, Ratan Sagar Colony, Iskon Road, Mansarovar, Police Station Muhana. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9293/2025 Anshul Khanna @ Anshul S/o Late Shri Bharat Bhushan Khanna, R/o House No. E-566, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Presently Tenant House No. D-24, Ratan Sagar Colony, Eskon Road, Mansarovar. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devanshu Saini Ms. Sunita Sharma Mr. Mahendra Kumar Ms. Megha Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP Mr. Dalbeer, SHO with Mr. Gopalchand, ASI, PS Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/08/2025 1. These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in [2025:RJ-JP:35152] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5972/2025] connection with FIR No.460/2024 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(4) and 61(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(4), 340(2), 329(3) and 61(2)(b) of BNS, 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. Co-accused namely- Chetan Sharma has already been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is submitted that petitioner- Rakesh Kumar Saini is in custody since 05.04.2025 whereas petitioners- Rishabh Sharma & Anshul Khanna @ Anshul are in custody since 04.04.2025. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioners. He submits that not only did the petitioners make fake/forged documents of the complainant’s property but on the basis of said fake documents, they sold the property to two different persons and got crores of rupees. Counsel submits that in this regard, three separate FIRs have been lodged against the petitioners at the same police Station wherein investigation is still going on. He further submits that in one case, arrest of the accused petitioners is yet to be made. [2025:RJ-JP:35152] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5972/2025] 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. The case of co-accused namely- Chetan Sharma is on different footing in comparison to the case of the present accused petitioners as neither he signed nor witnessed any documents. Prima facie, it appears that not only did the petitioners make fake/forged documents of the complainant’s property but on the basis of said fake documents, they sold the property to two different persons and received crores of rupees. Further, investigation has not been completed in all FIRs registered against the petitioners at the same police station. Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, despite the fact that offences are triable by magistrate, this Court is not inclined to accept the instant bail applications. Hence, same are dismissed. 6. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision the instant bail applications and would not impact the trial of the case in any manner. 7. However, petitioners would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the learned trial court under Section 480(6) of BNSS (Corresponding to Section 437(6) of Cr.PC), if trial is not completed within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for recording the prosecution’ witnesses. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /41-43