[2026:RJ-JP:16412] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3314/2026 Satyaveer S/o Mugaram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Yadav Nagar, Ramgarh, Police Station Ramgarh, District Alwar. (At Present In Central Jail, Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakad, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 18/04/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.167/2021 registered at Police Station Mandhan, District Bhiwadi for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the offence alleged against the accused-petitioner is triable by the Court of Magistrate and the Police after completion of investigation has already submitted charge-sheet in the matter. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused, namely, Shersingh, Hanuman, Suresh and Hansa Devi have already been enlarged on bail. Therefore, the accused-petitioner may be released on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application. [2026:RJ-JP:16412] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3314/2026] 4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the charge-sheet. 5. As per the facts on record, the allegation against the accused-petitioner is that he is said to have executed a sale deed of the property-in-question in the name of Shersingh who is brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of the accused-petitioner though, he was neither the owner of the property-in-question nor has made any claim by filing civil litigation over the property. On a query put to counsel for the accused-petitioner whether the accused-petitioner is having any title over the property for which he has executed a sale deed or any kind of other claim, he answered that there is no title document in his favour. The answer to the query by counsel for the petitioner clearly shows that the accused-petitioner has executed a sale deed of the property which belongs to some other persons, namely, complainant and his brothers, namely, Maniram, Mahaveer and Balwant, out of which, two owners of the property, namely, Mahaveer and Balwant had passed away long back and in this manner, the accused-petitioner is said to have executed the sale deed by impersonating him to be the owner of the property- in-question in place of the deceased persons. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner when asked whether they are ready to handover the possession of the property-in-question to the actual owner of that property, he said that since a civil suit is pending, he cannot make any statement. 7. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and specifically the fact on record that the accused- [2026:RJ-JP:16412] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3314/2026] petitioner has executed the sale deed of the property-in-question which belongs to other persons and that too in favour of his own brother-in-law (Bahnoi) and they are not even agreed to return the said property to original owner, hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /17