[2025:RJ-JP:37245] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2679/2025 Manish Jogi S/o Late Rangnath, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Rajiya Colony, Rajaredi, Housing Board Madanganj, Police Station Madanganj, District Ajmer. (At Present In Central Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3075/2025 Monu S/o Sh. Omprakash, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Khateek Mohalla, Chamda Ghar Gandhinagar, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Ajmer (At Present Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3076/2025 Rameshnath S/o Sh. Ratannath, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Jogiyon Ka Nada, Police Station Kishangarh, District Ajmer (At Present Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh with Mr. Shivam Sharma and Mr. Ravi Kumar Yadav Mr. Akshat Chaudhary Ms. Chaya Sharma and [2025:RJ-JP:37245] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-2679/2025] Mr. Lakhinder Singh both for Mr. Tapeshwar Pal Singh Parmar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 01/09/2025 1. These applications for bail are filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the petitioners-accused Manish Jogi S/o Late Rangnath, Monu S/o Sh. Omprakash and Rameshnath S/o Sh. Ratannath in FIR No.70/2024 dated 23.03.2024 registered at P.S. Kishangarh District – Ajmer, whereby the petitioners-accused have charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 2. The petitioners were arrested and are in judicial custody since their arrest. The Court below has dismissed the bail applications. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon grounds raised in bail application submit that the petitioners are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. He submit that the present petitioner and the complainant are acquainted with each other and consciously entered into a communication for sale of property. They further submit that the complainant and/with Manish Jogi have entered into an agreement of sell of property on 18.01.2024 in pursuance of agreement have paid money to complainant. They further submit that the complainant has registered a complaint on 23.03.2024 acknowledging transaction of sell of property [2025:RJ-JP:37245] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-2679/2025] and further execution of agreement on 18.01.2024 and receipt of money in pursuant to agreement. He further submits that on basis of power of attorney given by complainant, Ramesh Nath has executed a sale deed in favour of Manish, wherein another petitioner-Monu is an attesting witnesses. He further submits that as per allegation after impersonating as complainant by an unknown female, a power of attorney is executed in favour of Ramesh and authorising to execute sell deed in pursuance of agreement dated 18.01.2024. They further submit that this is a case of civil nature and due to internal dispute in the family of complainant, a criminal case is registered. They further referred order dated 10.09.2024 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.6136/2024 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur and submitted that sister of complainant has also registered FIR No.49/2024 on 23.03.2024 at PS Peelwa, District Deedwana Kuchaman and the same was quashed on the joint request of parties. 4. Learned counsel for Manish further submits that now second FIR is registered by another sister wherein these petitioners were arrested and they are in custody. He also referred the evidence collected by police and submitted that a civil suit is already pending and Manish Jogi has executed an affidavit to execute an instrument to show his intention that he is ready to execute a sale deed in favour of complainant, provided sale consideration paid by him may be returned to him. Learned counsel appearing for Ramesh Nath has submitted that his involvement is limited and he just executed sale [2025:RJ-JP:37245] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-2679/2025] deed on basis of power of attorney whereas learned counsel for Monu submits that he is an attesting witness. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that these petitioners are habitual offenders and they have committed several offences relating to fabrication of documents. He further referred 4 criminal cases against Manish Nath, 3 against Ramesh Nath and 5 against Monu and submitted copies of FIR in support of his submissions. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Pubic Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 8. On basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant Sarda Devi on 23.03.2024 about sale of her land mentioned in para No.1 of complaint after an agreement with Manish Nath on 18.01.2024 and execution of sale-deed on basis of fabricated power of attorney and without payment of remaining sale consideration, a criminal case is registered. He further submitted that a forged power of attorney is prepared and land was transferred and mutation is opened. After registration of report, the statement of witnesses were recorded and after procuring documents, were examined by FSL. During investigation, these petitioners were arrested and a charge-sheet has been filed against Manish Jogi, Monu, Ramesh, Naru Nath and Bal Kishan. The offences are triable by Magistrate First Class. 9. The criminal antecedents submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant indicate that 8 criminal cases were [2025:RJ-JP:37245] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-2679/2025] registered against Naru Nath, 4 against Manish Nath, 3 against Ramesh Nath and 5 against Monu. The material on record also indicated that FIR No.49/2024 registered at PS Pilwa District Deedwana Kuchaman was quashed by a Co- ordinate Bench at Jodhpur on 10.09.2024 in Misc. Petition No.6136/2024 after compromise between the parties. The order indicate that Pappu Devi, sister of present complainant has also registered an identical complaint about sale of her share by same set of accused. The accused have entered into a compromise with Pappu Devi. Further, an affidavit of Manish Jogi is filed to show that he is ready to transfer the agriculture land to the complainant Sharda Devi and also for cancellation of mutation. Learned counsel for the complainant has not responded positively on said proposal. The material available on record and also the criminal background indicate that these petitioners are involved in identical nature of cases and it is also apparent that Monu and Naru Nath both are commonly involved in 4 criminal cases and they are witnesses and it indicate that a systematic transfer of land of others to third party without actual transaction. Similar is the act of Manish Nath and Ramesh Nath and it indicate that the involvement is common at two cases. 10. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are 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 [2025:RJ-JP:37245] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-2679/2025] collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 11. 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. 12. Accordingly, the applications for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by petitioners-accused Manish Jogi S/o Late Rangnath, Monu S/o Sh. Omprakash and Rameshnath S/o Sh. Ratannath are hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/30 to 32