[2025:RJ-JP:35147] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2 nd Bail Application No. 10809/2025 Manovar s/o Sabbir Ahmed, Aged About 46 Years, R/o House No. 715, Kaji Ka Nala, Johri Bazar, Ghatgate, Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur, At Present Tenant At House No. 823, Kaji Ka Nala, Johri Bazar, Ghatgate, Jaipur. (At Present Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner-Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/08/2025 1. Instant S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the applicant-accused Manovar s/o Sabbir Ahmed in FIR No. 299/2024, dated 01.10.2024 registered at P.S. Sadar, District – Jaipur (West), whereby the applicant-accused was charged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 197, 198, 200 and 120-B of IPC. 2. The 1st Bail Application No. 6672/2025 was dismissed by this Court on 28.05.2025 and 2nd Bail Application has been filed after filing of charge-sheet. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused submits that the applicant is an innocent person and there is no evidence in support of allegations made by the police. He further [2025:RJ-JP:35147] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10809/2025] submitted that if any accused has submitted a false surety then it is an obligation of the Court to verify his credentials before attesting his surety. He further submitted that the allegations on present applicant is to assist accused in procuring bail and the evidence collected by police is too remote. He also submitted that the offence is triable by the Magistrate First Class and the disposal of the case will take some time. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and she submitted that the offence pertains to administration of justice. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 6. In a matter arising out of FIR No. 299/2024, dated 01.10.2024, when learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.2, Jaipur Metro-II has registered a criminal case against unknown person in executing surety to release accused Amit Kumar, the report is registered. During investigation, it has come to notice that the present applicant-accused, who was in contact with Nand Singh has managed Nand Singh to give surety by impersonating himself as Moti Singh, so as to release Amit Kumar and Moti Singh has already expired on 08.02.2022, whereas surety was given on 10.02.2023. The applicant-accused has conspired with Nand Singh in preparing false and fabricated document so that Nand Singh may impersonate himself as Moti Singh and give surety to release Amit Kumar on bail. After investigation, the police [2025:RJ-JP:35147] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10809/2025] has filed charge-sheet against Nand Singh and present applicant-accused. The offences are triable by Magistrate and the applicant-accused is in custody since 20.04.2025. 7. While considering First Bail Application on 28.05.2025, this Court has observed as under:- “5. On the basis of report submitted by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.2, Jaipur Metro-II FIR No.299/2024 was rgeistered at P.S. Sadar, Jaipur (West) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 197, 198, 200 and 120B IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 20.04.2025. 6. The allegation upon petitioner is to arrange and facilitate a surety to secure bail of Amit Kumar in criminal case No.16/2022 arising out of FIR No.264/2022 P.S. Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur. Present petitioner has contacted Nand Singh and Nand Singh has executed and submitted surety by impersonating himself as Moti Singh, who expired one year before date of submission of surety. It indicated that if this petitioner, after hatching conspiracy with Nand Singh has not prepared fabricated document then it is not possible to release accused Amit Kumar from prison. 7. The evidence of present petitioner is against the administration of justice, wherein a Judicial Officer was forced to register FIR to prevent recurrence of such act. Having considered the gravity and heinousness of the offence committed by this petitioner, I am of considered view that this is not a fit case to enlarge petitioner on bail.” 8. The applicant-accused is charged for offence committed against Judicial System and the offence aimed to disrupt public confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of the justice delivery system. The act of present applicant-accused is serious as it undermines the process for justice meant for [2025:RJ-JP:35147] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10809/2025] individuals and sufficient to erode public trust in legal system. 9. Having considered the act of present applicant-accused, role and involvement, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to grant bail to applicant-accused Manovar s/o Sabbir Ahmed. 10. Consequently, the instant 2nd Bail Application preferred by applicant-accused Manovar s/o Sabbir Ahmed under Section 483 of BNSS, is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PKS/27