[2025:RJ-JP:41883] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12364/2025 Vijendra Singh Meena @ Vijay Meena S/o Shambhudayal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Bhalpur, Police Station Balaji, District Dausa, Presently Residing At Gahroli, Police Station Todabhim, District Karauli, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Hindaun City, District Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta-Addl.G.A cum PP Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 14/10/2025 1. This bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by petitioner in connection with the FIR No. 187/2024 registered at Police Station Todabhim, District Gangapur City wherein he has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 341, 365, 384, 342, and 392 of IPC, (later on he has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC) . 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a dispute over the ownership of vehicle between the accused and the complainant. Counsel submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner has not found to be proved during the course of investigation and this fact has also been incorporated in the [2025:RJ-JP:41883] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12364/2025] investigation when the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused persons has tampered with the vehicle number and chassis number of the vehicle. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Counsel submits that trial will take its own time to conclude, therefore indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner and other co-accused persons have created false documents for purchase of the vehicle. Counsel submits that they forcefully took the vehicle from the complainant, incorporated certain forged documents and tampered with the vehicle number and chassis numbers of the vehicle. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to get any indulgence of bail and the present bail application is liable to be rejected. 4 Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest and also considering the fact that the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate and after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and trial will take its own time to conclude, without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and appropriate to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS. [2025:RJ-JP:41883] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12364/2025] 6. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner-Vijendra Singh Meena @ Vijay Meena S/o Shambhudayal arrested in connection with aforementioned FIR, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/136