[2025:RJ-JP:29755] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8492/2025 Balveer Singh S/o Chand Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Jerthi, Ps Dadiya, District Sikar, At Present R/o Between Both The Lines Himmat Nagar, Police Station Udhyog Nagar, District Sikar (Raj.) (At Present In District Jail Sikar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Vyas For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP Mr. Shubham Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 01/08/2025 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.125/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 316(2) & 61(2) of BNS. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He contends that in the FIR, nothing has been alleged against the petitioner by the complainant. The petitioner has not prepared any fabricated or forged document. He has not played any fraud with the complainant. He has been in custody since 16.06.2025 [2025:RJ-JP:29755] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-8492/2025] whereas trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruit 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 during investigation, it has come out that the petitioner also actively participated in the commission of the alleged crime. However, investigation is still going on in the matter. The petitioner is a habitual offender as apart from the present one, eight other criminal cases have also been registered against him. It is submitted that the accused persons in a very planned manner, hatched a conspiracy and played fraud with the complainant and received huge money of Rs.90,00,000/- in cash from the complainant in lieu of sale consideration of a piece of land. It is also argued that the complainant also prepared a video wherein said transaction receiving money by the accused person in cash from him, has been recorded. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. As per the material available on record, investigation is still going on in the matter. However, as per the investigation so far conducted, it has come out the accused persons hatched a conspiracy and received huge amount in cash from the complainant side as sale consideration for a piece of land, which actually not owned by them. The accused Vimla Devi showed [2025:RJ-JP:29755] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-8492/2025] herself as Meera, owner of the land and the petitioner is also found to be involved in this conspiracy. Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also looking to the role attributed to the petitioner as per the investigation so far conducted and looking to the previous criminal antecedents of the accused petitioner, I do not find it a fit case so as to accept this bail application at this stage. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed at this stage. The petitioner may renew the prayer of bail in changed circumstances. 6. The complainant has claimed to have paid huge sum of Rs.90,00,000/- in cash as sale consideration of the land. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution versus B. Gunashekar & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.5200 of 2025, arising from SLP(C) No.13679/2022, : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 793 took note of the fact that the respondents/plaintiffs therein claimed to have paid huge sum towards consideration by cash whereas provisions have been made under the Income Tax Act to curb black money and corruption by digitalising the transactions above Rs.2,00,000/-. Referring the extract of the memo presented with the Finance Bill, 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that when huge sum is paid in cash, it not only creates a suspicion on the transaction but also displays a violation of law. The directions passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred case are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready-reference:- [2025:RJ-JP:29755] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-8492/2025] (A) Whenever, a suit is filed with a claim that Rs. 2,00,000/- and above is paid by cash towards any transaction, the courts must intimate the same to the jurisdictional Income Tax Department to verify the transaction and the violation of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, if any, (B) Whenever, any such information is received either from the court or otherwise, the Jurisdictional Income Tax authority shall take appropriate steps by following the due process in law, (C) Whenever, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and above is claimed to be paid by cash towards consideration for conveyance of any immovable property in a document presented for registration, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar shall intimate the same to the jurisdictional Income Tax Authority who shall follow the due process in law before taking any action, (D) Whenever, it comes to the knowledge of any Income Tax Authority that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- or above has been paid by way of consideration in any transaction relating to any immovable property from any other source or during the course of search or assessment proceedings, the failure of the registering authority shall be brought to the knowledge of the Chief Secretary of the State/UT for initiating appropriate disciplinary action against such officer who failed to intimate the transactions. 7 In the instant case, it has been claimed that a total sum of Rs.90,00,000/- has been given in cash by the complainant as a sale consideration of a piece of land to the accused persons, which in my considered opinion too, is a violation of law. Thus, it is deemed appropriate to intimate the concerned Jurisdictional Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps in the matter by following the due process in law. Accordingly, IO is directed to send copy of this order along with copy of FIR to the concerned jurisdictional Income Tax Department and inform them regarding [2025:RJ-JP:29755] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-8492/2025] the transaction, allegedly taken place between the complainant and the accused person in the present FIR so that appropriate action may be taken by the Income Tax authorities in accordance with law. 8. It is made clear that 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 /251