HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16325/2024 Himanshu Jain S/o Anil Jain, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Plot No. 25, Vivek Vihar, New Sanganer Road, Sodhala, Jaipur At Present He Was Residing At Plot No. 25, Sector 1 Chitrkut, P.s. Chitrkut, Jaipur Old, Office Address 101-102, Shri Gopal Tower, Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur At Present Office Address 3010, Third Floor, Orbit Mall, Jaipur, At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Sharma For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Ram Awtar Sharma Mr. Suresh Kumawat Ms. Radha Kanwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 16/01/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the accused-petitioner. The accused- petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.69/2024 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South) for the offence(s) under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the FIR was lodged with a delay of 8 months. It is also contended that the accused-petitioner provided a loan to the complainant Godawari and the complainant never gave any blank cheque to the accused-petitioner. It is also contended that the account statements shows that the petitioner granted loan (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16325/2024] time to time to the complainant and the said loan was transferred in the account of the complainant. It is also contended that the complainant also executed a promissory note on 01.07.2023 in favour of the accused-petitioner and promised to pay Rs.21,000/- per month. It is also contended that the charge-sheet has already been produced against the accused-petitioner under Section 420 and 406 of IPC and the offences alleged against the accused- petitioner are triable by Magistrate. There are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner is in custody since long and trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the bail application and contended that in the pretext of getting loan from the bank, the accused-petitioner siphoned off the amount of around Rs.6 lakhs in his own account by using mobile phone of the complainant. It is also contended that the complainant is an illiterate person and was not aware that the accused-petitioner has transferred the said loan amount in his own account, therefore, considering the allegations levelled against the accused-petitioner, the bail deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the accused-petitioner is in custody since long and trial of the case will take considerable time, the offences alleged against the accused-petitioner are triable by Magistrate, without commenting anything on the merits of the (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16325/2024] case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Himanshu Jain S/o Anil Jain in connection with FIR No.69/2024 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South), shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J DEEPA RANI -287