[2025:RJ-JP:40395] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6623/2025 Abdul Salim S/o Jumma Tajak, R/o Ward No. 3, Kot Mohalla, Near Shahido Ki Masjid, Kaithun, Police Station Kaithun, District Kota ( Rajasthan ) ( At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota, District Kota) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7976/2025 Dr. Subhash Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Harishankar, R/o Lohamandi Bhaganta District Agra, Hal A-74, Subhash Colony, Kherli Phatak Thana Bheemganjmandi District Kota. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Kota Since 30/01/2025) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma for Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj For State For Complainant : : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP with Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 06/10/2025 1. The instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicants. The accused- applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 27/2024 [2025:RJ-JP:40395] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6623/2025] registered at Police Station Kaithun District Kota for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants has relied upon the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in SBCRLMB No. 794/2025 along with 1909/2025, wherein present applicants, under the akin factual matrix have been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the matter is triable by Magistrate and is having a civil flavour. 3. Further, it is submitted that without executing any agreement, commercial transactions were entered wherein applicants have given legal notices as well as have filed a civil suit. It is further submitted that criminal proceedings are unwarranted and not tenable when civil suit is ongoing. Additionally, it is submitted that trial would take time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused-applicants behind bars till disposal of the case. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor along with learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail applications and have submitted that there is a thin layer between initiation of criminal proceedings and civil proceedings. It is further submitted that without having any valid title, complainant and other investors were duped and without following the provisions of Stamp Act, Registration Act, bogus transactions were entered into. 5. Furthermore, it is submitted that there are strong criminal antecedents registered against the accused-applicants. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that judgments relied upon by the accused-applicant are [2025:RJ-JP:40395] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6623/2025] distinguishable as criminal antecedents are not visualized and provisions of Section 420 and 406 IPC are also bypassed. 6. Heard. 7. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and taking note of the fact that accused-applicants have strong criminal antecedent registered against them; that matters cannot be considered in an isolated manner; that the offence fall under the ambit of white collar crime and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this court is not inclined to allow the instant bail applications of the accused-applicants. 8. Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /42-43