[2025:RJ-JP:38047] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10047/2025 Deepak Jain @ R.k. Agarwal S/o Shri Jinendra Kumar Jain, Aged About 50 Years, R/o House No. 22, Saidham, Yamuna Vihar, Kamla Nagar, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, Currently House No. 33/02, Renuka Dham Colony, Karmyogi, Kamla Nagar, Police Thana Kamla Nagar, District Agra, Uttar Pradesh. (Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Sharma For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Anil Kumar Tailor with Mr. Manish Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/09/2025 1. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.350/2023 registered at Police Station Murlipura, District Jaipur (West) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 201, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:38047] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10047/2025] similarly situated co-accused person namely- Smt. Nisha Sharma has already been granted benefit of bail by this court. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 20.03.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that in a very planned manner, number of persons have been cheated by the petitioner as well as co-accused persons. It is submitted that according to the Investigation Report, petitioner played active role in the commission of crime and he received huge amount of money from the victims. It is submitted that by way of passing a detailed order, Co-ordinate bench of this Court has rejected the bail application of similarly situated co-accused persons namely- Sunit Sharma @ Abhishek Sharma and Kamal Kishore Meena @ Montu Meena vide order dated 16.08.2024. Thereafter, a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16618/2024 was preferred by co- accused Sunit Sharma @ Abhishek Sharma and same was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.03.2025. 4. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 5. It appears from the record that petitioner played active role in the commission of crime and as per charge-sheet, huge amount of money has been received by the petitioner from the victims and status of the petitioner is found to be congruous with the role of [2025:RJ-JP:38047] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10047/2025] co-accused namely- Kishore Meena @ Montu Meena who has been denied benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and co- accused namely- Sunit Sharma @ Abhishek Sharma who has been denied benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court, so far as co-accused namely- Smt. Nisha Sharma is concerned, her case was on different footing and her case was considered in the light of the fact that she is a female. Further, considering the fact that in a very planned manner, number of persons have been cheated by the petitioner and co- accused persons. 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 bail application. 6. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. 7. The observations made hereinabove are only for disposal of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /111