[2025:RJ-JP:47865] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal 2nd Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13377/2025 Narunath S/o Lalanath, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Jogiyon Ka Nada, P.s. Kishangarh, District Ajmer (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Prasad Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 25/11/2025 1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Narunath S/o Lalanath seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.70/2024 dated 23.03.2024 registered at P.S. Kishangarh, District – Ajmer, for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B 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 further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. [2025:RJ-JP:47865] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-13377/2025] 3. Learned Counsel for petitioner, while placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of V. Senthil v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, reported as 2024 INSC 739, submitted that despite the filing of the charge sheet before the trial court, charges have not been framed till date. He also submitted that the trial court is not exercising proper control over the proceedings, which is evident from the order sheets submitted by him. He further submitted that the delay is caused by the trial court and, due to such delay, the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. He also submitted that out 23 pending cases against the petitioner, 2 cases have already been disposed of on the basis of compromise. He further submitted that bail is the rule and the petitioner is entitled to bail, as he has been named only on the ground that he is merely an attesting witness. He further submitted that the custody period during trial is not a punishment. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 6. While considering the bail applications of Manish, Monu, and Ramesh on 01.09.2025, this Court observed as under: 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 [2025:RJ-JP:47865] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-13377/2025] 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. The criminal antecedents submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant indicate that 8 criminal cases were 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 [2025:RJ-JP:47865] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-13377/2025] 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. 7. A total number of 8 criminal cases were registered against Narunath (present petitioner) and the observations clearly reflect that the accused was involved in identical nature of cases, whereas Monu and Narunath were involved in 4 criminal cases. It also indicates that they were the witnesses and that there was a systematic transfer of land in order to grab the land. The status report submitted by the trial court and the order sheets submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner indicate that on 06.05.2025, the charge sheet had been filed against 4 accused persons, and in the last 6 months the trial court has not framed charges against the petitioner. It is also apparent that the petitioner himself and other accused have sought time through their counsel for framing of charges. The delay is caused by the accused, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim bail on the ground of delay. 8. As regards the principles governing grant of bail, we agree to the extent that the Court has to consider bail in appropriate [2025:RJ-JP:47865] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-13377/2025] cases, but while considering bail, the Court has to apply the settled principles of law. Even while referring to the judgment in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Director of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1862, has held that in cases relating to economic offences, the Court has to consider the severe impact on society. Though the present petition does not pertain to money laundering but it is still a case relating to illegal property transfer due to financial reasons. Therefore, considering the criminal antecedents and the systematic transfer of the complainant’s property by a group of individuals, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 9. 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 collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Narunath S/o Lalanath is hereby dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:47865] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-13377/2025] 12. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and frame the charges within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the same is made out in accordance with law. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /03