[2025:RJ-JP:11185] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 671/2025 Hariprasad Saini S/o Sh. Ramgopal Saini, R/o N-125, Kendriya Vihar Sector -8, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Presently - Ward No. 4, Saraswati Secondary School Ke Paas, Dungram Ji Ki Dhani, Losal, District Sikar. (Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purushottam Lal Hissaria For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Majhar Hussain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/03/2025 1. This 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.22/2019 registered at Police Station Banipark, District Jaipur (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 & 120B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that essentially, there is a civil dispute between the parties. Counsel submits that alleged agreement to sell was executed in the year 2014 while matter was reported to the police in the year 2019 after a delay of about 5 years for which no proper or plausible reason is available on record. It is submitted that alleged offences are triable by [2025:RJ-JP:11185] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-671/2025] Magistrate and same are based on documents which are in possession of the investigating Agency. It is contended that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 03.12.2024 and 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 counsel for the petitioner. Learned Public prosecutor submits that 2 other cases of similar nature have been registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for complainant submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner of receiving Rs.71,00,000/- (Seventy One Lakh Rupees) from the complainant on account of executing agreement to sell. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and 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 fit and proper to allow this bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Hariprasad Saini S/o Sh. Ramgopal Saini 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 [2025:RJ-JP:11185] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-671/2025] 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. 7. 7. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in second week of every month, till trial is concluded. 8. If breach of any 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 observation made herein above 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 /386