[2025:RJ-JP:5872] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 2034/2025 1. Shailendra Gujrati S/o Shri Reva Shankar, R/o Mahavati Tola Near Badh, Kagadi Devra, Police Station Kotwali Bundi, District Bundi (Raj.). (At Present Lodge At Central Jail Bundi). 2. Virendra Kumar Gujrati S/o Shri Reva Shankar, R/o Mahavati Tola Near Badh, Kagadi Devra, Police Station Kotwali Bundi, District Bundi (Raj.). At Presently Residies Govindam Colony, Devpura, District Bundi (Raj). (At Present Lodge At Central Jail Bundi). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Laddha For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Pradeep Mathur through VC Mr. Paras Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/02/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.96/2023 registered at Police Station Sadar Bundi, District Bundi (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC. 2. First bail application of the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after filing of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this [2025:RJ-JP:5872] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2034/2025] matter. Thus, this second bail application has been preferred by the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is submitted that essentially, there is civil dispute between the parties which can only be decided by the Civil Court. It is submitted that an appeal was also preferred by the petitioners with regard to the said property before the Additional Divisional Commissioner and said appeal was accepted vide order dated 26.10.2006. It is submitted that mutation No.785 was opened in favour of the petitioners on 28.05.2004 which is still in existence. Counsel submits that entire offence is based on documents and same has already been recovered by the investigating agency. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners. Charge-sheet has already been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioners are in custody since 08.11.2024 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. They submit that false affidavit was furnished by the petitioners before the authority and on that basis mutation was opened in their favour. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel [2025:RJ-JP:5872] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2034/2025] for the petitioners, especially the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; charge-sheet has been filed in this matter and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion; absence of criminal antecedents against the petitioners; period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners - 1. Shailendra Gujrati S/o Shri Reva Shankar and 2. Virendra Kumar Gujrati S/o Shri Reva Shankar shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 they 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. The observation made herein above is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J LALIT MOHAN /52