[2025:RJ-JP:31081] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8188/2025 1. Ravi Meghani Son Of Shri Shyam Sundar Meghani, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Flat No. 404, Govindam, Jaysinghpura, Bhankora, Jaipur. 2. Sumit Son Of Shri Shyam Sundar Meghani, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Flat No. 404, Govindam, Jaysinghpura, Bhankora ,jaipur. (At Present Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioners Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Bairwa Mr. Ashish Bairwa Ms. Sushmita Kumari Mr. Amit Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Shubham Kumar Saini, AAAG Mr. Abhinav Saxena Ms. Neha Garg Mr. Anil Mehta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 11/08/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioners. The accused-petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No. 1133/2024 registered at Police Station Mansarovar, District Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He [2025:RJ-JP:31081] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8188/2025] further submits that prima facie offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B is not made out against the petitioners as the petitioners have not cheated the complainant. Petitioners have issued four cheques which were dishonoured and the complainant pursued litigation under Sections 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioners, thereafter the said FIR has been lodged against the petitioners. The present FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The offences alleged against the accused-petitioners are exclusively triable by Magistrate. The accused-petitioners are in custody since 14.06.2025 and the trial of the case may take considerable time. The charge-sheet against the petitioners has been submitted before the concerned court therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioners may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that in pretext of multiplying the amount, petitioners received Rs.11,50,000/- (eleven lakh fifty thousand) cash from the complainant, thereafter they did not return the amount. On 12.08.2023, an agreement was executed between the petitioners and the complainant and in pursuant of that agreement the petitioners issued three cheques, however those cheques were also dishonoured, prima facie offence under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC is made out against the petitioners, as their intention from the inception was not to return the amount to the complainant. It is also contended that the petitioners have also deceived the other persons and several FIRs were also registered against the petitioners. It is also contended that in FIR No. 267/2024 registered with police station Shipra Path the petitioners were [2025:RJ-JP:31081] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8188/2025] granted conditional bail, however they did not comply with the conditions intercepted for bail order and the co-ordinate Bench of this court in SB Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 53/2025, cancelled the bail order. Therefore considering the conduct and act of the petitioners, their bail application deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the offences alleged against the accused-petitioners are exclusively triable by Magistrate and for the same allegation which are alleged in the present FIR, the complainant has already availed remedy under Section 138 of the NI Act. The accused-petitioner is in custody since long and the trial of the case may take considerable time. The charge-sheet against the accused-petitioners have already been submitted before the concerned court, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners 1. Ravi Meghani Son Of Shri Shyam Sundar Meghani, and 2. Sumit Son Of Shri Shyam Sundar Meghani, in connection with FIR No. 1133/2024 registered at Police Station Mansarovar, District Jaipur City (South) shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. [2025:RJ-JP:31081] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8188/2025] 7. The accused-petitioners are also directed to mark their presence on 25th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned police station. The SHO of the concerned police station shall send the presence report of the accused petitioners on the same day to the trial court every month. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the petitioners for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court. ( PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /209