[2025:RJ-JP:40635] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12222/2025 Kailash Chand Son Of Chhotelal, Resident Of Ward No. 34, Malipura, Bandikui, Police Station Bandikui, Presently- Panchmukhi Tan Panditpura, Police Station Baswa, District Dausa. (Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Dausa.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt.G.A. and Mr. Saransh Saini, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 24/09/2025 This bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with FIR No.100/2025 Police Station Bandikui District Dausa for offences under Sections 420, 408, 120B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence. He is in custody since his date of arrest and his custody is no more required for any other purpose. The alleged offence are triable by magistrate. Trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. It is [2025:RJ-JP:40635] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-12222/2025] submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner that while working on the post of LDC in Saini Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Shikshan Sansthan, Bandikui, he misused his position and misappropriated the school funds and embezzled Rs. 65,00,000/-, which is evident from audit report. It is also argued that two other criminal cases have also been registered against the petitioner. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking the nature of allegations attributed to the petitioner as also his previous criminal antecedents, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the bail application is dismissed. The petitioner would be at liberty to renew prayer for bail after submission of charge sheet in the court concerned. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Sudhir Asopa/241