[2025:RJ-JP:40260] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11021/2025 Rajesh S/o Ramhari, Age 36 Years, R/o A-3/02/20 Dwarkapuri Pratapnagar, P.S. Pratapnagar, District Jaipur East. (Petitioner At Present Confined In District Jail, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Sharma Mr. Akash Tak Mr. Gaurav Rawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP Mr. Sahil Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 03/10/2025 1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Rajesh S/o Ramhari, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.16/2025 dated 04.01.2025 registered at P.S. Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur City (south), for the offence under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS. 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. He also submits that the [2025:RJ-JP:40260] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11021/2025] applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present petitioner is arrested on 22.07.2025 and police has already filed a charge-sheet against him. He further submits that there is a long list of witness and trial will take time. He also referred letter dated 21.01.2025 and submitted that the chain of sale, as claimed by the complainant is not established from the documents collected by investigating agency. He further submits that police has not named Meena Sharma as an accused from whom Kamal Sharma has allegedly purchased the plot. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application and submitted that plot No. 28 was allotted to Meena Sharma wife of present petitioner and she sold it by registered sale deed to wife of complainant. He further submits that after executing the sale deed in favour of Kamal Sharma, Meena Sharma has executed registered sale deed in favour of Rajesh Sharma and he sold the plot to Vinod Agarwal. He further submits that this is a case of systematic fraud committed by the present petitioner and Meena Sharma and police has not arrested Meena Sharma. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. [2025:RJ-JP:40260] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11021/2025] 7. On the basis of report dated 04.01.2025 lodged by complainant Anil Kumar a criminal case is registered. During investigation police has found that the plot No. 28, Ashok Vihar was allotted to Meena Sharma wife of Rajesh Sharma and thereafter by registered sale deed Meena Sharma has sold it to Kamal Sharma on 21.02.2014. As per the statement of Kamal Sharma he sold said plot to Anamika wife of Anil Kumar by registered sale deed on 20.11.2019. The record indicates that Meena Sharma has executed registered sale deed in favour of Rajesh Sharma on 27.02.2024 and Rajesh Sharma has executed a sale deed on 30.08.2024 in favour of Vinod Agarwal. A copy of documents also indicates that Vinod Kumar Agarwal has sold it to Pabir Ghosh by registered sale deed dated 25.11.2024. 8. The sequence of events clearly indicate systematic fraud played with complainant and involvement of many people and it is expected of police to investigate the entire chain. 9. The facts and the material indicates that the alleged offence is 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. 10. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:40260] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11021/2025] 11. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Rajesh S/o Ramhari, is hereby dismissed. 12. A copy of this order be sent to DCP (South) with direction to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted to prevent similar nature of systematic fraud played with other individuals. A report be submitted before this court after three months. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J ashu /31