Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26732 (RAJ)

LAKSHMICHAND S/O SHRI HEERALAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/10028/2025 · 2025-09-09

Praveer Bhatnagar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:36323] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10028/2025 Lakshmichand S/o Shri Heeralal, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Tejaji Chowk, Rupangarh, Police Station District Ajmer, At Present In Central Jail Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP, Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 09/09/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioners. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.216/2024 registered at Police Station Rupangarh, District Ajmer for the offence(s) under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the age of the petitioner- Lakshmichand is 80 years. The charge-sheet against the petitioner and the other co- accused has already been submitted for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. It is also contended that the petitioner shall put all endeavour to settle the dispute arose between the parties. It is further contended that the offences alleged against the accused-petitioner are exclusively triable by Magistrate. The accused-petitioner is in custody since [2025:RJ-JP:36323] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-10028/2025] long and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, considering the old age of the petitioner, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the petitioner along with the other co-accused forged the documents creating rights of other co-accused. The disputed property belongs to late Nand Kishore and Nand Kishore never executed settlement deed. The signature of Late Nand Kishore on settlement deed was found to be forged, therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. Considering the old age of the petitioner, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely: Lakshmichand S/o Shri Heeralal, in connection with FIR No.216/2024 registered at Police Station Rupangarh, District Ajmer, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes 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 for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/65