[2026:RJ-JP:956] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 96/2026 Smt. Hema Savlani W/o Dilip Kumar Savlani, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 4-B-23, Sector-4 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur At Present Lodged In The Mahila Jail Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, PP Mr. Parth Sharma, for Mr. Sudhir Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 09/01/2026 1. This bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner u/S 483 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 369/2024 registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar (Jaipur City East), District Jaipur City (East) for offences u/S 323, 341, 392, 420, 421 & 120B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the allegations made against the accused petitioner are false and fabricated. He further submits that the accused petitioner owns a house and that house has never been subjected to any sale to the complainant. He further submits that the complainant has prepared a forged sale agreement of the petitioner's house. When the petitioner got published a public notice in the newspaper on 04.09.2025 claiming that the complainant has purchased the said house, the accused petitioner soon thereafter on 11.09.2025, by a [2026:RJ-JP:956] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-96/2026] public notice in the newspaper controverted the fact stated in the public notice by the complainant. He further submits that when the complainant party tried to take possession of the petitioner's house, she lodged an FIR against the complainant party on 05.11.2024. Counsel further submits that though the police, after completion of investigation, has submitted final negating report observing that the matter is of civil nature, the complainant moved an application and the competent court has ordered for further investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner further submits that as regards the alleged sale of house by the accused petitioner to the complainant, the complainant has filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract agreement on 06.11.2024, wherein he has got interim relief on 11.11.2024 to the extent that the accused petitioner shall not transfer or alienate the house to any third party. After obtaining the interim relief the present criminal case has been lodged by the complainant so as to create pressure to sale the house to the complainant. He further submits that the accused petitioner is a woman and is in custody since 15.12.2025. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application. 5. Counsel for the complainant submits that the accused petitioner is a habitual of such kind of offences. He further submits that initially the accused petitioner has handed over the possession of the house at the time of sale agreement but now she has ousted the complainant from the house. [2026:RJ-JP:956] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-96/2026] 6. On scrutiny, it is found that only one case of similar nature is pending against the accused petitioner. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that the accused petitioner is a habitual offender. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the accused petitioner and more particularly the fact that the accused petitioner is a woman and is in custody since 15.12.2025 and also the fact that the matter regarding same is subjudice before the civil court in a suit filed by the complainant himself, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of this case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided that she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only), together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the stipulation that she shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /181