[2026:RJ-JP:7490] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1870/2026 Ranvir Singh Bijarnia S/o Shri Madan Lal Bijarnia, Aged About 40 Years, Panlawa, Police Station Balaran, District Sikar (Raj.), Cur- rently Resident Of House No. 103 B Katewa Nagar, New San- ganer Road, Gurjar Ki Thadi, Sodala Jaipur City, Police Station Shyam Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Sikar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg with Mr. Nonit Hatila For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 17/02/2026 1. The present bail application has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with F.I.R. No.03/2024 registered at Police Station UdhyogNagar (Sikar), District Sikar for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 420, 406 and 120B IPC, Section(s) 3, 4 & 5 of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section(s) 3/21 & 5/25 Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that a number of FIRs have been registered against the petitioner, how- ever, he has been enlarged on bail in as many as 15 cases, and [2026:RJ-JP:7490] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1870/2026] some of the said FIRs have been quashed on the basis of compromise, by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. Learned counsel also submits that in fact, the petitioner is in custody since 17.03.2023, however, in this case petitioner is in confinement since 21.08.2024; charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter and conclusion of trial will take considerably long time, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner into custody, and therefore prays to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that multiple FIRs have been registered against the petitioner and he is in custody in other cases also. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts & circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the period of custody, the fact that petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and trial will take considerably long time in its conclusion, thus, without commenting anything upon the merits / demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 5. Therefore, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and the accused-petitioner, namely Ranvir Singh Bijarania S/o Madan Lal, is ordered to be released on bail, pro- vided 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 he shall appear before that Court [2026:RJ-JP:7490] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1870/2026] and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subse- quent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 6. It is made clear that after being released in other cases, the accused-petitioner shall not indulge in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence on first Monday of every month in the concerned station. 7. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fail to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 8. In case any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 10. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J AVINASH GULERIA /103