[2025:RJ-JP:4689] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16026/2024 Sandeep Soral S/o Jogendra Nath Soral, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Flat No. B-101, Srinath Apartment, First Floor, Old Post Officer Road, Bhimganjmandi Mandi, Kota City. (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Ms. Harshita Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/02/2025 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.284/2023 registered at Police Station Bheemganj Mandi, District Kota City (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. He submits that alleged cheques issued in favour of the petitioner were encashed in the year 2019 but FIR has been registered in the year 2023 for which no reasonable explanation is available on record. It is submitted that one writ petition was filed [2025:RJ-JP:4689] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16026/2024] by the complainant with regard to the same transaction of the allotment of house but in said petition, nothing was lodged against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the entire offence is based on the documents & same have been recovered by the Investigating Agency. After thorough investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner & trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2024. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for complainant submits that in a very planned manner, cheating was committed by the petitioner. She submits that it is evident from the reply furnished by two persons namely Nalinish Sharma & Prerna Sharma that said cheques were deposited in their account for encashment, thereafter, money was handed over to the petitioner in cash. They further submit that two other cases have been registered against the petitioner. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of two cases, petitioner has been acquitted in one case. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, as also considering the material available on record including charge-sheet, especially the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate for which maximum punishment is seven [2025:RJ-JP:4689] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16026/2024] years; trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Sandeep Soral S/o Jogendra Nath Soral, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. It is made clear that the accused petitioner shall not involve in any other similar offence during currency of the bail and during trial, he shall mark his presence on first week of every month in the concerned police station. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 9. The observations made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /156