[2025:RJ-JP:51538] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16562/2025 Radheshyam S/o Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Ramnagar Dhosi Police Station Gangapurcity, At Present Sainik Nagar Police Station Udai Mod Gangapurcity District Sawai Madhopur. At Present In Sub Jail, Gangapurcity. ----Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr.Harendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sudesh Saini, P.P. Mr.A.R.Meena HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 19/12/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed by the applicant Radheshyam S/o Kanhaiyalal, aged about 72 Years, arrested by the police on 03.12.2025 in connection with the FIR bearing No.140/2025 dated 24.05.2025 registered at Police Station Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur in respect of the incident dated 19.01.2024 for the offences registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1 vide order dated 09.12.2025, thereafter, the applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. 2. Learned counsel submits that the applicant and the complainant are running a shop from last 80-100 years on [2025:RJ-JP:51538] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16562/2025] exchange basis arrangement, under which, every year one party gets the chance to run the shop. However, on account of preparation of certain documents, a dispute arose between them, and therefore, the impugned FIR came to be lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is more than 72 years of age and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses. Learned counsel submits that the applicant and the complainant were known to each other from last 80 to 100 years, on account of their past family bonding. In view of the above fact, learned counsel submits that the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case, and he may be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant has committed forgery of documents such as rent deeds, death certificates and other government documents on the basis of which he transferred the electricity connection in his own name, and therefore, the present applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 4. This Court considering the nature of allegations noted that bonding between the applicant and the complainant is more than 80-100 years old and on account of some misunderstanding and greed, some overt acts have been done by the accused-applicant. 5. Be that as it may. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and noticing the fact that the present case is triable by the Magistrate, this Court is inclined to exercise its power under Section 483 B.N.S.S. and deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:51538] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16562/2025] 7. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that accused-applicant - Radheshyam S/o Kanhaiyalal shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. The applicant is further directed not to take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty. It is made clear that the observation as made by this Court in the bail application will not affect the trial of the case. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J Monika/250