[2026:RJ-JP:6552] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal 3rd Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1268/2026 Balram Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Ramavatar Gurjar, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Mariyada, Tehsil Sikray, Police Station Sikandra, District Dausa, Presently Residing At House No. 09, Shiv Nagar Block C, Vatika Road Sanganer, Police Station Sanganer Sadar, District Jaipur (Raj.). (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. Herambh Saraswat Mr. Utkarsh Goyal and Ms. Chanchal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 11/02/2026 1. Instant third bail application is filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the applicant-accused Balram Singh Gujar S/o Shri Ramavtar Gurjar in FIR No.192/2025 dated 27.05.2025 registered at P.S. Govindgarh, District Jaipur (Rural), whereby the applicant-accused was charged under Section 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2)(b) of BNS and Section 66C of IT Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are [2026:RJ-JP:6552] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-1268/2026] no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that first bail application of present petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 05.08.2025 and second on 10.10.2025. He further submitted that trial court has framed charges on 14.10.2025 and same was challenged in Criminal Revision before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chomu, District Jaipur and on 06.01.2026, the revision was allowed and order to frame charge dated 14.10.2025 was set aside and matter was remanded. 4. He further submitted that till date charge has not been framed after remand against the petitioner and now it will take time in disposal of criminal case. He further submitted that offences are triable by First Magistrate First Class. He further referred cross-examination of witnesses PW1 Omprakash, PW2 Gopal Singh, PW3 Kajodmal and submitted that present petitioner was not assigned any duty for approval of scholarship, by any means. 5. He further submitted that petitioner has obtained information under the RTI Act and the information clearly indicate that a person who was found guilty in administrative capacity was suspended but on his writ petition before Hon’ble High Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur, the suspension order was revoked. He further submitted that two other persons responsible for the act are still posted and neither Pawan Poonia nor [2026:RJ-JP:6552] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-1268/2026] Kishnaram or any other person was arrayed as a witness in the case. He further referred the material and submitted that present petitioner was not assigned any duty for verification or approval as the petitioner was working on contractual capacity. At last, he submitted that petitioner-accused is in custody since his arrest on 11.06.2025. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 8. On the basis of report registered by Deputy Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department about loss of ₹23 lakhs to the government exchequer, FIR No. 192/2025 was registered at PS Govindgarh on 27.05.2025. After investigation, police has found involvement of Shravan, Vijay Kumar and present petitioner and filed a charge sheet against them but kept pending against Karan, Omprakash, Ramdayal, Pawan Kumar, Kishnaram, Anil and others under Section 193(9) of BNSS. 9. After framing of charge on 14.10.2025, learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Chomu has recorded statement of three witnesses, namely PW1 Omprakash, PW2 Gopal Singh and PW3 Kajormal Sharma. Meanwhile, the present petitioner has challenged order of charge dated 14.10.2025 by filing a Criminal Revision No. 24/2025 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chomu, District Jaipur, and on 06.01.2026, [2026:RJ-JP:6552] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-1268/2026] the order to frame charge was set aside and matter was remanded back for framing the charge. 10. For ready reference, the order to frame charge passed by the trial court and reasons for remand are reproduced as under: (i) The order to frame charge passed by learned Judicial Magistrate is as under: ",ihih mifLFkrA eqqyfteku fot;] cyjke o Jo.kjke ts-lh- ls mifLFkrA vfHk;qäx.k fot;] cyjke o Jo.kjke dks vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 318¼4½ ch,u,l] 316¼2½ ch,u,l] 338 ch,u,l] 340¼2½ ch,u,l] 336¼3½ ch,u,l] 61¼2½¼B½ ch,u,l rFkk /kkjk 66 lh vkbZ Vh ,DV dk vkjksi i`Fkd ls fojfpr dj lquk;k o le>k;k x;k rks vfHk;qäx.k us vkjksi vLohdkj dj vUoh{kk pkghA " (ii) The order to remand is reproduced as under: "vfHk;qäx.k dks mä vkns'k ds vk/kkj ij i`Fkd ls vkjksi fojfpr dj lquk;s x;s ijarq fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk mä vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa ldkj.k vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k gSA vkjksi fojpuk ds izØe ij lk{; ds foLr`r foospuk dh vko';drk ugha gksrh gSA ijarq bl izØe ij Hkh vfHk;qäx.k ds fo:) vkjksi fojpuk ds laca/k esa vk/kkjksa dk laf{kIr foospu fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA ijarq fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vk{ksfir vkns'k esa ,slk dksbZ ldkj.k mYys[k ugha fd;k gSA vr% vkns'k ;qfä;qä ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA blfy;s ;g fuxjkuh vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA" 11. Aforesaid clearly indicated that Judicial Magistrate has joined the court after institutional training of one year, and if he does not understand importance of reasons required to charge any person, then nothing is required to be said. It appears that either the resources selected by the Rajasthan Judicial Academy are not proper or learned Judicial [2026:RJ-JP:6552] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-1268/2026] Magistrate has not learned anything. Whatever be the reason, the exercise carried out in the instant case has turned futile and of no use, as after recording statement of three material witnesses, the matter was remanded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, though we also does not approve remand order, considering the fact that three accused are in custody and since then three material witnesses were examined, but ultimately action of court has resulted into delay. 12. Section 480(6) of BNS provides that if any accused in any case triable by Magistrate, the trial of person accused of any non-bailable offences not conducted within a period of 60 days from date fixed for taking in evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of Magistrate unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. 13. The material on record indicated that after framing the charge on 14.10.2025, first date fixed for recording evidence was 27.10.2025 and statement of PW1 was recorded on 14.11.2025, but within two months, the trial has not been concluded. There is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner and now again the matter will be considered for framing of charge. 14. The material on record indicated that this is an institutional failure that we are unable to impart justice despite having sufficient number of Judicial Magistrates and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates at grassroot level. The disposal of cases [2026:RJ-JP:6552] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-1268/2026] wherein the accused are in custody is not considered a priority. 15. Here in this case, we have no option except to consider the bail of present petitioner and it is really painful that we are releasing the present petitioner, as we are unable to begin the trial as we have pushed back the petitioner to the stage of charge due to negligence of learned Judicial Magistrate. Here in this case, the present petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2025 and till date his period of custody is more than eight months and still there is no criminal antecedent against him. 16. The report registered by complainant Jitendra Kumar Sethi indicate that primary charge is upon Vijay Kumar, who was e-Mitra operator and the allegation on present petitioner is about manipulation in software/portal. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not assigned said duty as he was a contractual employee. Admittedly the petitioner was a contractual employee and his role and involvement has been denied by PW-3 in cross-examination. 17. Looking to entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant- accused. 18. Thus, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant- accused Balram Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Ramavatar Gurjar, is hereby allowed and the applicant-accused is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal [2026:RJ-JP:6552] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-1268/2026] bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. (iii) The applicant-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court. (iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicant-accused shall be liable to be canceled. 19. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. 20. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar (General) for placing the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate administrative steps, to address issue of speeding up trial of criminal cases, wherein accused are languishing in jail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /24