[2025:RJ-JP:40070] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10906/2025 Om Prakash Meena S/o Shri Amar Lal, R/o 20, Ganesh Vihar Agra Road Jaipur, President House No. 31A, Shri Ganesh Vihar, Agra Road, Police Station Jamdoli, Jaipur, At Present In The Judicial Custody In Central Jai, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora with Mr. G.P. Sharma Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta Mr. Sahaj Veer Baweja For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Mahendra Shandilya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 25/09/2025 1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Om Prakash Meena S/o Shri Amar Lal seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.38/2017 dated 11.02.2017 registered at P.S. Jyoti Nagar District – Jaipur South, for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 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 also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with trial, which will take time. [2025:RJ-JP:40070] (2 of 12) [CRLMB-10906/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 17.01.2015, the present petitioner and Geeta Devi (complainant in FIR No.73/2015 PS Masalpur, District Karauli) has filed nomination for post of Sarpanch of Panchayat Ratiapura and after election the present petitioner was elected as Sarpanch on 18.01.2015. He further submits that defeated candidate Geeta Devi has filed a criminal complaint before the Court of Magistrate alleging that the present petitioner has concealed birth of third child born on 27.10.2008 at Government Satellite Hospital, Sethi Colony, Jaipur and further birth certificate was issued by Nagar Nigam (Moti Dongri Zone). He submits that after investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 417 and 193 of IPC but on a revision petition, learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order to frame charge and remitted back the matter and present petitioner was discharged from offence under Section 420, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC. He also submits that the present petitioner was charged under Sections 417 and 193 of IPC and thereafter the present petitioner was tried only for offence under Sections 417 and 193 of IPC and he was found guilty on 29.03.2025. He submits that against said judgment, an appeal is filed and same is pending for consideration before the Appellate Court. He also submits that an election petition was filed in February, 2015 and same was also disposed of. He further submitted that defeated candidate Geeta Devi and her husband Rishikesh instigated complainant Om Prakash to file [2025:RJ-JP:40070] (3 of 12) [CRLMB-10906/2025] a complaint on the ground that present petitioner created false documents to create defence in cases against him and registered a criminal case against the present petitioner on same charges for which the petitioner accused was already tried and convicted. He further submitted that now after investigation, police has already filed a charge-sheet and the present petitioner accused is in custody since 08.08.2025 and the offence is triable by the Magistrate. 4. Learned counsel has referred judgments in cases of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala :(2001) 6 SCC 181, Amitbhai Anitchandara Shah Vs. CBI :(2013) 6 SCC 348 and submitted that second FIR based on same set of facts and cause of action, is barred and continuation of proceedings under second FIR amounts to a clear abuse of process of law. He referred the facts narrated by complainant Om Prakash and submitted that the present complainant is instigated by Rishikesh, who is husband of Geeta Bai. He submitted that the documents as referred in FIR and also the affidavit as submitted in the name of Om Prakash cannot be considered as forged documents. He referred judgment in case of Mariam Fasihuddin Vs. State :(2024) 11 SCC 733 and submitted that a similar and identical question was raised about signature on passport by another person to obtain passport for minor child and Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that offence under Section 420 of IPC is not made out. He further referred definition under Section 463 of IPC and submitted that essential ingredients of forgery are missing as there is no evidence to [2025:RJ-JP:40070] (4 of 12) [CRLMB-10906/2025] constitute an offence of creating a fabricated document. He referred judgment in case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar : (2009) 8 SCC 751. 5. Learned counsel has further referred the material and submitted that the present petitioner satisfies the condition for grant of bail as there is no likelihood to influence the prosecution witness nor chances of fleeing from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and also chance to repeat offence. He submits that considering the overall facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for bail. He referred judgment in case of Abhimanyue Vs. State of Kerala (SLP No.5814-15 of 2016, order dated 22.09.2025) and Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan (SLP No.10587/2023 order dated 17.12.2024) 2024 SCC Online SC 3763 and submitted that criminal antecedents is not a ground to deny bail to any person when the petitioner accused is otherwise entitled particularly considering that the offence is triable by Magistrate and investigation is complete. He referred order dated 27.08.2024 in case of Abdul Majid Abdulsattar Memon Vs. State of Gujarat : Criminal Appeal No.3525 of 2024 and submitted that in said case accused was having criminal antecedents of 14 cases but offence for which he was charged was triable by Magistrate First Class and Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed that the High Court ought to have granted bail to the accused. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and [2025:RJ-JP:40070] (5 of 12) [CRLMB-10906/2025] serious in nature. She has also filed a report received from concerned Police Station. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application of the present petitioner and submits that by using his influence, the present petitioner has avoid criminal investigation for almost eight years and after repeated pursuance by complainant, the present petitioner was arrested in FIR registered in year 2017. He also submits that Geeta Devi has filed a complaint only on the ground that the present petitioner has concealed a material fact of third child at the time of filing of nomination form for the post of Sarpanch. He further submits that during defence of the election petition, the present petitioner has created a false document by impersonating himself by using identical name of complainant and using details of his daughter to get register and obtain a false birth certificate. He also submits that the present petitioner was elected in 2015 and he managed the entire system in a manner that he completed his term of five years till 2020. He submits that FIR No.73/2015 registered by Geeta Bai is on different facts and current FIR is on different facts as cause of action in both the cases are different. He further referred the judgment dated 29.03.2025 in Criminal Case No. 371/2016 passed by learned ACJM, Karauli and submitted that forgery and fabrication of documents by the present petitioner were not considered while trial of criminal case registered as FIR No.73/2015. He also submits that the charge against the present petitioner was only for false declaration made before [2025:RJ-JP:40070] (6 of 12) [CRLMB-10906/2025] the Returning Officer and there is no charge of fabrication of any document. He further referred judgment in case of Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash and Ors. : 2004 Supreme (SC) 1052 and submitted that after considering judgment in case of TT Antony Vs. State of Kerala (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a subsequent FIR is permissible. He further submits that five criminal cases were registered against the present petitioner and he is having a criminal background and not entitled for any relief from this Hon’ble Court. He further referred order dated 21.05.2022 in election petition passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Karauli and submitted that after consuming entire tenure, the election petition was decided. This is sufficient shows that how the petitioner has delayed the proceedings instituted against him so that no harm is caused to him to complete his tenure as Sarpanch. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 9. A criminal complaint is filed before learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur against Karpal and unknown person for alluring him for providing him benefit of government scheme and after procuring details and application for birth registration of his daughter is filed in the Nagar Nigam Jaipur for issuing a birth certificate in the name of Komal showing her birth at Satellite Hospital, Sethi Colony, Jaipur instead of PHC Barnala. The complaint is forwarded for registration of a [2025:RJ-JP:40070] (7 of 12) [CRLMB-10906/2025] complaint case under Section 156(3) of CrPC to PS Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur on 06.02.2017 but same was returned as lack of jurisdiction of concerned police station. The trial Cout has pulled up the police and directed to investigate the matter by order dated 31.03.2023. Thereafter, the matter is investigated by police and after investigation, police has found that by using birth record of daughter of complainant Om Prakash, a new birth registration was procured by concealing birth record of Government Satellite Hospital, Sethi Colony, Jaipur so that present petitioner may have a plausible defence in FIR No.73/2015 registered at PS Masalpur and also in election petition filed before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karauli by defeated candidate Geeta Devi It is also on record that for alleged offence committed in 2017 onwards, no action was taken against the present petitioner in current FIR till 2025. The present petitioner accused is arrested on 08.08.2025 and he is in custody and a charge-sheet has already been filed against him for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The offence is triable by Magistrate. 10. In case of Abdulmajid Abdulsattar Memon Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), 14 criminal cases were registered against accused and out of which nine were resulted into acquittal but the case in which he was in custody was triable by Magistrate. Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that the High Court ought to have granted bail to the appellant. 11. In case of Abhimanyue Vs. State of Kerala (supra) after placing reliance upon Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan [2025:RJ-JP:40070] (8 of 12) [CRLMB-10906/2025] (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that criminal antecedents by itself cannot constitute a ground for denial of bail. 12. Herein five criminal cases were said to have been registered against the present petitioner and in one case, the present petitioner was already convicted. The trial Court has mentioned that eight criminal cases were registered against the petitioner accused, though details are not provided by both the parties. 13. After noticing the fact of false declaration and concealment of material fact by present petitioner accused, defeated Geeta Devi wife of Rishikesh Meena has registered an FIR No.73/2015 at PS Masalpur, wherein present petitioner accused was tried for offence under Sections 417 and 193 IPC and convicted on 29.03.2025. In another election proceeding filed as Election Petition No.2/2018 before learned District Judge, Karauli which was decided by learned Senior Civil Judge, Karauli on 21.05.2022 issue No.1 was decided against the present petitioner but the election petition was dismissed as rendered infructuous. The Election Tribunal has found that the present petitioner is guilty of concealing fact about birth of third child at the time of filing of nomination. The material in defence exhibited by the present petitioner in election petition indicate that the issue referred in criminal case was also taken as a defence and discussed by learned Election Tribunal. We are refraining ourselves on considering this issue on merits as the trial in the intant case has yet to began. [2025:RJ-JP:40070] (9 of 12) [CRLMB-10906/2025] 14. In case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. CBI (supra) after considering the judgment in case of TT Anthony (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered an issue where as a result of single conspiracy three fake encounter killings followed and two FIRs were registered. The principle of law is that second FIR in case of offence relating to same transaction is impermissible. 15. In a matter arising out of FIR No.73/2015, allegation upon the present petitioner was only for concealing the fact of birth of third child and filing a false declaration before the Returning Officer. The allegation was for concealment of fact of birth of third child on 27.10.2008 at Govt. Satellite Hospital, Sethi Colony, Jaipur. The investigation and the trial focused only on false declaration made by the present petitioner. 16. Here in this case, though the criminal complaint is filed by complainant Om Prakash at the instance of Rishikesh Meena, who is husband of defeated candidate Geeta Devi but the allegations are different as the present petitioner has used birth record of daughter of complainant to create a defence in a criminal case arising out of FIR No.73/2015 and also in election petition No.2/2018. The facts narrated in the complaint filed by Om Prakash Sahu clearly indicate that the cause of action accrued only in October, 2016 when an unknown person approached him by alluring him to provide him benefit of government schemes meant for girl child. The entire material referred during course of arguments indicate that these documents were created only after registration of [2025:RJ-JP:40070] (10 of 12) [CRLMB-10906/2025] FIR No.73/2015 and after accrual of cause of action for election petition. Therefore, judgment in case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Karela (supra) and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra) are prima facie not applicable, however, the petitioner is at liberty to raise this ground at the time of charge and current observation has to be treated only as observation for deciding the bail. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically laid down that a criminal antecedents may not be a ground to dismiss the bail application by petitioner accused though in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan Etc. : 2025 INSC 979, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered several judgments including the case of State through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi : (2005) 8 SCC 21. 18. We are independently considering the gravity of present matter. Having considered the totality, it appears that the complaint was filed in 2017 and same was returned by PS Jyoti Nagar on the ground that the offence is committed beyond territorial jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar but when rebuke by learned Metropolitan Magistrate only then police initiated investigation and ultimately in FIR registered in 2017, the investigation has culminated into arrest of petitioner on 08.08.2025 but by the time term of five years as Sarpanch was over for the present petitioner. 19. Ordinarily, the Court may consider the arguments that the offence is triable by Magistrate First Class and charge-sheet has been filed and the criminal antecedents is not sufficient in the instant case to deny bail to the present petitioner but [2025:RJ-JP:40070] (11 of 12) [CRLMB-10906/2025] the circumstances clearly indicate that the petitioner accused has used the system to show he is above the law and he was not protected for almost eight years by police despite noticing concealment of material fact in 2015 when an FIR No.73/2015 is filed against him and an election petition is filed in February, 2015. the petitioner accused instead of defending case with his bona fides in FIR No.73/2015 and also in election petition filed against him he has created documents in year 2016 or 2017 so that he may get out of criminal case registered against him and be able to defend election petition. 20. One more issue played by the present petitioner accused is that he has lodged a FIR No.66/2015 through a criminal complaint case, wherein police has filed a closure report after investigation. A copy of this closure report relating to FIR No.66/2015 dated 13.05.2015 PS Lal Kothi, Jaipur and a copy of protest petition is placed on record. 21. Having considered the totality and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of considered view that in case of grant of bail to the petitioner accused will communicate a wrong message to the society that any influential person may get bail from the High Court after successfully dodging the machinery for more than eight years. 22. 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:40070] (12 of 12) [CRLMB-10906/2025] collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 23. 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. 24. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by the applicant-accused Om Prakash Meena S/o Shri Amar Lal is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/16