[2026:RJ-JP:10353] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 2933/2026 Bhawani Shankar S/o Lalluram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Dhankon Ka Mohalla, Beelpur, Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Mr. Vimal Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. B.L. Nasuna Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 10/03/2026 1. The present bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are filed by the applicant-accused Bhawani Shankar S/o Lalluram and 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, 336(3) and 61(2)(a) of BNS. 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:10353] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-2933/2026] offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide executant of document and he was not aware about any of the transaction between complainant and main accused Dharam Pratap Singh. He also submitted that Dharam Pratap Singh has expired after his arrest and he is kingpin behind the entire conspiracy. He also submitted that the present petitioner was working with Dharam Pratap Singh who is in close acquaintance with complainant. He also submitted that present petitioner is neither aware about the whereabouts of complainant or his family members rather present petitioner has just signed a document which was brought to him by Dharam Pratap Singh. At last, he submitted that present petitioner is in custody and considering his role he is entitled to be released on bail. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 6. The bail application of Sanwarmal was dismissed by this court on 09.02.2026 whereas bail application of Raju Prasad, another accused, was dismissed on 09.01.2026. Prior to aforesaid bail application of Raju Prasad, Sanwarmal, Bhawani Shankar were dismissed on 25.09.2025. Admittedly, main accused is Dharam Pratap Singh who expired while he was in judicial custody. 7. The material on record indicate that issue pertains to forgery of documents and transfer of land of complainant and his close [2026:RJ-JP:10353] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-2933/2026] relatives by executing power of attorney in the name of present petitioner. The power of attorney is a forged document which was never executed by complainant or his family members. The allegations are serious in nature and while deciding first bail application we have 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 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. Again considering second bail application of Raju Prasad on 09.01.2026 we have observed as under: "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 [2026:RJ-JP:10353] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-2933/2026] 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:10353] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-2933/2026] 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 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." 9. Second bail applications of accused Raju Prasad and Sanwarmal were dismissed by this court. The case of present petitioner is even far more grave than both the accused Sanwarmal and Raju Prasad. The issue pertains to a systematic transfer of land of complainant and his relatives. Thus, the allegations are serious in nature. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Accordingly, the second application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Bhawani Shankar S/o Lalluram is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /18