[2026:RJ-JP:992] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal 2nd Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16666/2025 Raju Prasad S/o Narayanlal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Jaichandrapura, Police Station Raisar, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur, District Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 09/01/2026 1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Raju Prasad S/o Narayanlal, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.85/2025 dated 22.02.2025 registered at P.S. Samod, District – Jaipur Rural, for the offence under Section 318(4), 338, 326(3) and 61(2)(a) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submit 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 no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertake not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. [2026:RJ-JP:992] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-16666/2025] 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the first bail application this Hon’ble Court has observed that the main accused is Dharam Pratap Singh and the present petitioner has acted in conspiracy with Dharam Pratap Singh. He further submits that the main accused Dharam Pratap Singh was arrested by the police on 23.09.2025 and was sent to judicial custody, however, during judicial custody he expired. He further submits that the material placed at the time of bail application of Dharam Pratap Singh reflects that there was a transaction between the complainant Sudarshan Singh and Dharam Pratap Singh. It is further submitted that a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs was transferred by way of RTGS (electronic transfer) to the account of the complainant. He also submits that Dharam Pratap Singh had registered a criminal case being FIR No. 412/2025 on 01.07.2025 at Police Station Jhotwara, against Bhavani Shankar, Sudarshan Singh and other persons including the present petitioner. 4. Learned counsel further refers to a notice sent by Dharam Pratap Singh through his counsel dated 21.04.2025 and the reply dated 06.05.2025 sent by the complainant Sudarshan through his counsel, and submits that there is no specific denial with regard to the transaction and payment of advance amount against the agreement to sell. He further submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and has nothing to do with the alleged transaction and has been falsely implicated by the complainant. It is further submitted that the role and involvement of the present petitioner is only of putting his signature on the document and that the [2026:RJ-JP:992] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-16666/2025] petitioner is not a beneficiary. At last, it is submitted that the offence is triable by a Magistrate and that the petitioner is in custody since his arrest on 01.08.2025. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the Learned Public Prosecutor and Learned Counsel for the complainant. Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that the present petitioner is an eyewitness to the forged power of attorney as well as the forged will of the mother of the complainant. He further submits that the petitioner is part of an organized gang indulging in fabrication of false documents. 6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 7. While considering the first bail application of the present petitioner on 25.09.2025, this Court observed as under: “On basis of a complaint dated 22.02.2025 lodged at P.S. Samod, District Jaipur Rural about transfer of land by fabricated agreement to sell and power of attorney, a report is registered and matter is investigated. During investigation, police has recorded statement of complainant and Neelima Singh, Smita Singh and Girija Shah. Police has found that Dharam Pratap Singh, who deals in properties is well aware about lands of Rajputs, and he is in conspiracy with Raju Prasad, Bhawani Shankar Soni, Sanwarmal and Harphool Choudhary hatched a conspiracy and fabricated the documents, to grab the property in question. Police has also [2026:RJ-JP:992] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-16666/2025] found that a fabricated Will of late Smt. Sobhagya Kanwar (mother of complainat Sudarshan Singh) is also prepared by Dharam Pratap Singh, wherein Raju Prasad and Bhawani Shankar Soni were witnesses and after selling the land, they have collected crores of rupees. The investigation further suggested that by using forged power of attorney Bhawani Shankar Soni has executed 14 sale deeds in favour of Dharam Pratap Singh and in all sale deeds, Raju Prasad and Sanwarmal are witnesses.” 8. The main accused Dharam Pratap Singh was arrested on 23.09.2025 and his bail application No. 15785/2025 was filed before this Court. During pendency of the said bail application, Dharam Pratap Singh expired in custody. In the present FIR No. 85/2025, after investigation, the police has filed a charge-sheet against Bhavani Shankar, Sanwarmal, Raju Prasad and Dharam Pratap Singh, while keeping the investigation pending under Section 193(9) of BNSS. 9. The material on record clearly indicates that Dharam Pratap Singh had registered FIR No. 412/2025 on 01.07.2025 at Police Station Jhotwara by way of a criminal complaint before the criminal court having jurisdiction. The said FIR was registered under Section 175(3) of BNSS. The material on record also indicates that after registration of the present FIR on 22.02.2025, a notice dated 21.04.2025 was sent by Dharam Pratap Singh to Bhavani Shankar, Sudarshan Singh, Raju and Sanwarmal Gujar. It is mentioned therein that a sum [2026:RJ-JP:992] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-16666/2025] of ₹ 10 lakhs was transferred by RTGS on 21.06.2024 to the account of Sudarshan Singh. 10. A reply to the said notice was sent by Sudarshan Singh through his counsel on 06.05.2025 and this Court has considered the relevant part of the reply as referred by Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The material on record clearly indicates that the notice was sent after registration of the present FIR and the subsequent FIR was registered after five months of registration of the present FIR. 11. The facts as narrated in the complaint indicate that a fabricated power of attorney was prepared in the name of Bhavani Shankar, wherein the present petitioner was a witness. Thus, considering the entire arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent on record that whatever communication initiated by Dharam Pratap Singh was only after registration of the present FIR. The transfer of ₹ 10 lakhs alleged to be towards an agreement to sell is also not part of the record. Therefore, this Court cannot draw a conclusion that the dispute is purely civil in nature. 12. The material on record further indicate that the complainant has alleged that a forged will was also fabricated, wherein the present petitioner is again a witness. No doubt, rise in land prices have resulted in commission of document- related crimes including fabrication of wills, powers of attorney and impersonation of individuals. This Court cannot draw a conclusion that the transaction is a civil act and not a criminal act. The offence alleged against the petitioner is grave in nature. Though the petitioner may not be a direct [2026:RJ-JP:992] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-16666/2025] beneficiary under the alleged transfer or land transaction, he is alleged to be part of a syndicate, as reflected from the statements of witnesses recorded by the police. 13. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 14. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. 15. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Raju Prasad S/o Narayanlal, is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /21