[2025:RJ-JP:11937] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 1971/2025 Dheeraj Vadiya S/o Surajmal Verma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Mali Mohalla, Bazar No. 02, Ramganjmandi, Presently Near Gyana School, Bazar No. 01, Ramganjmandi, Police Station Ramganjmandi, District Kota (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Central District Jail, Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 18/03/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.152/2023, registered with the Police Station Ramganjmandi, District Kota for offences under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC. 2. The first bail application of the petitioner bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9609/2024 was dismissed by this Court vide detailed order dated 01.10.2024. 3. Heard. 4. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record. 5. The allegation against the petitioner is that the accused- petitioner Dheeraj Vadiya alongwith co-accused Rajendra Sharma, without having any lawful title over the land in question have [2025:RJ-JP:11937] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1971/2025] dishonestly received Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant for sale consideration. 6. During the investigation it has come out that the accused- petitioner was not having any lawful title over the land in question. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to complete the instructions from the petitioner that since he has received the amount as a sale consideration from the complainant without having any lawful title over the land in question, why the petitioner should not refund that amount to the complainant. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not ready to refund the amount. 9. Counsel for the petitioner is also not able to convince this Court whether the accused-petitioner has any kind of ownership connection in regard to the land in question for which he has received Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant. 10. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the petitioner so also the conduct of the petitioner that he is not willing to repay the amount which he dishonestly received from the complainant clearly speaks of the criminal intention of the accused petitioner. 11. In the present case, it is a fact on record and admitted by the counsel for the accused petitioner that the accused petitioner has received an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant. The allegation in the case is that the accused petitioner has received Rs.7,00,000/- as a sale consideration for a land which he agreed to sale it to the complainant. This fact has also come on record that the land for which the accused petitioner has agreed to [2025:RJ-JP:11937] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1971/2025] sale to the complainant and received money from him, the accused petitioner has no legal title over it. Merely prosecuting a person with the aforesaid allegation and his conviction may be a lesson to the accused but may not be a real justice to the complainant. When it has come on record that the accused petitioner has received the amount from the complainant as a sale consideration for the land on which he was not having legal title, then he should have without any hesitation refunded the same to the complainant. Refund of money to the complainant, in opinion of the Court would be the real justice for the complainant. 12. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as observed above and the conduct and criminal intention of the accused petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 13. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J GAURAV SRIVASTAVA/Satyendra/7