[2026:RJ-JP:2964] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16450/2025 Gajendra Singh @ Bablu S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Thakriyawas, Police Station Deedwana District Deedwana Kuchaman, At Present R/o Balaji Colony, Near Bangad Hospital, Deedwana District Deedwana Kuchaman At Present R/o House No. 12 Om Nagar, Near Khridi Phatak, Vaishali Nagar, Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. (Present Confined In Centre Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Ashish Choudhary & Mr. Ranveer Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 22/01/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.569/2024 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur (West) for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)(a), 352, 351(2) & 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel contends that co-accused Ravi Gupta has been [2026:RJ-JP:2964] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-16450/2025] granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. As per the prosecution’s case, a sale deed in respect of the plot belonging to the complainant was allegedly executed by co-accused Ravi Gupta in favor of the petitioner. On the basis of the said sale deed, the petitioner subsequently executed a sale agreement in favor of Abdul Rahman Khan and received a sum of Rs. 31 lakhs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these facts demonstrate that no cheating was committed against the complainant, as the alleged sale deed executed by co-accused Ravi Gupta in favor of the petitioner was not found to be executed in the office of the sub-registrar. It is submitted that in view of observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. versus State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751, no locus to file this FIR lies in favour of the complainant. It is submitted that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. Learned counsel argues that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time. It is argued that petitioner is in custody since 13.08.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there are three criminal antecedents against the petitioner out of which, two are of similar nature. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and the material available on record in the form of case [2026:RJ-JP:2964] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-16450/2025] diary and the fact that co-accused has been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Gajendra Singh @ Bablu S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails 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. 9. If 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2964] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-16450/2025] Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /74