[2025:RJ-JP:47993] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 14831/2025 Kailash Chand S/o Chhotelal, R/o Ward No. 34, Malipura, Bandikui, Police Station Bandikui, Presently Panchmukhi, Tan Panditpura, Police Station Baswa, District Dausa (Raj.) (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Dausa (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Adv. With Ms. Anindya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Harshit Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Suman Kalal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Dhakar, PP with Mr. MS Shekhawat, PP Mr. Saransh Saini, Adv. for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 26/11/2025 1. The instant second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, herein, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.100/2025 registered at Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa for offences punishable under Sections 420, 408, 120-B of IPC. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first bail application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after submission of charge-sheet in the court concerned. Counsel submits that now charge-sheet has been filed. Thus, this [2025:RJ-JP:47993] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-14831/2025] second bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case as there is no evidence available on record to connect him with the alleged crime. Counsel submits that the petitioner has been made accused in this case for the reason that the Management of the school was changed and thereafter a fresh audit of income and expenditure of the school was carried out. Counsel further submits that from the statement of the subsequent Auditor, it appears that while carrying out fresh audit, previous audit report was not taken into consideration. Counsel contends that it is also evident from the record that fresh audit was carried out only on the basis of record provided by the Management of the school. Counsel submits that the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate; trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion; the petitioner is in custody since his arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. So far as, the other case of similar nature is concerned, counsel submits that the petitioner has already been acquitted in this case. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of embezzlement of Rs.65 lakhs. They further submits that earlier a case registered with similar offence against the petitioner was resulted in acquittal only on the basis of compromise, which shows that the petitioner is a habitual offender. [2025:RJ-JP:47993] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-14831/2025] 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet; trial will take time in its conclusion and looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this second bail application. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Kailash Chand S/o Chhotelal shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. Considering the criminal antecedents of the accused- petitioner, it is made clear that he shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial Court and Investigating Agency and he shall keep his mobile phone in active mode and he shall not switch off his mobile phone intentionally for longer period. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case, the petitioner fails to mark his presence [2025:RJ-JP:47993] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-14831/2025] in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If any breach of these conditions is reported or comes to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki /90