[2026:RJ-JP:33364] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10587/2026 CNR: RJHC020636462026 | URN: CRLMB / 19665U / 2026 Sonu Sharma S/o Shri Kamlesh Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Paldi Nizampur, P.s. Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa Rajasthan. (At Present In Judicial Custody In Central Jail Karauli) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Non/Petitioner For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta, P.P. Mr. Ramphool, ASI, Police Station Sapotra, District Karauli HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 20/08/2026 1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 12.06.2026 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karauli, in Criminal Misc. Case No.259/2026, whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected in connection with F.I.R. No.239/2025, Police Station Sapotra, District-Karauli for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2) of the BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 27.02.2026 and the challan in the case has already been filed. He further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with Lalchand Meena, created a real estate company, namely VVG Company, and, through a chain system, carried on business. Thereafter, they lured the victims by promising higher profits and asked them to invest in their [2026:RJ-JP:33364] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10587/2026] company. He further submits that only two FIRs have been reported/pending against the petitioner, namely FIR No. 139/2025 and FIR No. 168/2023, in which the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 766/2026 vide order dated 06.08.2026 and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1279/2026 vide order dated 17.08.2026. He further submits that, except for these two FIRs, no other cases are pending against the petitioner. Moreover, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time and the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by a Magistrate. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application. 4. Investigating Officer present in person and submits that total amount which has been paid by the victim/complainant is 15,00,000/- an odd amount through bank transactions. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and upon consideration of the submissions advanced, particularly the fact that the challan has already been filed, all the offences are triable by a Magistrate, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable time, the petitioner has been in custody for more than five months, and the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail in the other two FIRs, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application deserves to be accepted. [2026:RJ-JP:33364] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10587/2026] 7. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner - Sonu Sharma S/o Shri Kamlesh Sharma arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 239/2025, Police Station Sapotra, District Karauli, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till the completion of the trial and with additional following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not leave country without the permission of the Court; (ii) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected; and (iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (BIPIN GUPTA),J 30/KRATIKA