[2026:RJ-JP:6633] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 435/2026 Pawan Jain S/o Padam Kumar Jain @ Padam Chand Jain, aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Sarsiya, Police Station Jahajpur, Distt. Bhilwara. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined At Central Jail Ajmer, Distt. Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Patni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 12/02/2026 1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.342/2022 registered at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota City, District Kota for offence(s) under Section(s) 420, 406 and 120-B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has nothing to do with the alleged offences. Counsel further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is of inducing the complainant to deposit Rs.80 lakhs, however, the said amount was neither deposited in his account nor it was recovered from him. He also submits that the alleged amount was deposited in the bank account of other companies. [2026:RJ-JP:6633] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-435/2026] 3. Learned Counsel further contends that co-accused namely, Maina Devi Jain has already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 25.11.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14723/2025. Learned Counsel also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.05.2025; charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter and no recovery is required to be made from the petitioner. He further submits the offences are triable by Magistrate and trial will take considerably long time in its conclusion, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, hence, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that similar nature of eight cases have been reported against the petitioner and all of them were registered in year 2022, hence, benefit of bail should not be granted to the him. 5. In response to the factum of eight pending cases, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of these eight cases, FR has already been filed in one of the case. He further submits that in another case, accused-petitioner has been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 13.01.2026 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.422/2026. 6. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact that the co-accused has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench, offences are triable by [2026:RJ-JP:6633] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-435/2026] Magistrate, charge-sheet has already been filed and conclusion of trial will take considerable long time, without commenting anything on the merits / demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Therefore, this bail application is allowed and accused- petitioner Pawan Jain S/o Padam Kumar Jain @ Padam Chand Jain is ordered to be released on bail, provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the stipulation that the petitioner shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. The accused - petitioner is directed to mark his presence before the concerned Police Station on the 5th date of every month till conclusion of trial. The SHO of the concerned Police Station shall forward petitioner's attendance report to the trial Court on the same day of each month. In case of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be at liberty to move an application against the petitioner for cancellation of bail before the concerned Court. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J TN/18