[2025:RJ-JP:37220] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11506/2025 Jeetram @ Jitendra S/o Shambhudayal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Bhalpur, Police Station Balaji, District Dausa, At Present R/o Gahrauli, Police Station Todabheem, District Karauli, Raj. (At Present Confined In District Jail, Karauli) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. Akash Sharma Mr. Fateh Ram Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 11/09/2025 1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Jeetram @ Jitendra S/o Shambhudayal seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.187/2024 dated 14.06.2024 registered at P.S. Todabheem, District – Gangapur City, for the offence under Sections 143, 323, 341, 365, 384, 342, 392 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. [2025:RJ-JP:37220] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11506/2025] 3. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring the details mentioned in the FIR has submitted that for incident of 29.05.2024, a report is registered by complainant Hemraj on 14.06.2024 about snatching and robbery of four wheeler, money and further assault but matter is investigated by police and after investigation, police has found that offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC is made out which is contrary to the allegations made in the report. He further submitted that police has changed conclusion during investigation and rather found that allegations of complainant were not proved. At last, he submitted that petitioner is in custody since 20.08.2025 and there is no evidence to support the charges levelled by police. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. He has also filed a report received from concerned Police Station. 5. Learned counsel for complainant has also opposed the bail application and submitted that complainant has lodged report for snatching of his four wheeler and after repeated follow up, police has seized the vehicle. He further submitted that police has released seized vehicle to present petitioner after receipt of bribe of ₹20,000/-. He further submitted that a copy of affidavit of Shyam Singh Rajput is submitted to fortify his allegations. He also submitted that thereafter this vehicle was sezied and further on direction of the Court, a FSL examination was conducted wherein it was found that chesis number and engine number of vehicle were tampered [2025:RJ-JP:37220] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11506/2025] by petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner is having a criminal background and he is habitual offender. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 7. On the basis of complaint dated 14.06.2024 lodged by Hemraj about incident of 29.05.2024 for assault and snatching of vehicle with money, a report is registered and matter is investigated. During investigation, vehicle was recovered and further on examination it was found that engine number and chesis number were tampered. The petitioner is arrested on 20.08.2025 and since then he is in custody. 8. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 9. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Jeetram @ Jitendra S/o Shambhudayal is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /198