[2026:RJ-JP:12674] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16085/2025 Shyam Lal Meena S/o Shri Gulab Meena, R/o Village Chhatarpura, Post Dantali, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Presently Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2464/2026 Ramjilal Meena S/o Shri Kalyan Meena, R/o Village Chatarpur, Post Dantli, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Adv., and Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP and Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/03/2026 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.44/2023 registered at Police Station Ramnagariya, District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 323, 341, [2026:RJ-JP:12674] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-16085/2025] 504 and 120-B of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submit that perusal of the FIR would reveal that matter is of a civil nature with regard to the ownership of the plot in question i.e. plot No.B-84 located in the housing society ‘Shri Narsingh Arcade’. Counsel further submit that it is alleged in the FIR that plot in question was purchased by the complainant from one Smt. Beenu Devi by way of registered sale-deed on 01.11.2021, however, perusal of charge-sheet filed against the petitioners would reveal that said Smt. Beenu Devi is not a witness in the entire charge-sheet. They further argue that other FIRs have also been registered against the petitioners at the same Police Station with similar allegations. In those identical FIRs, benefit of bail has been granted to the petitioners by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is submitted that though initially, FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 323, 341, 504 and 120-B of IPC, but after investigation, police has filed charge-sheet only for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 384 and 120-B of IPC for which maximum punishment is seven years. It is also submitted that petitioners have not been convicted in any of the cases. They contend that offences are triable by Magistrate and the petitioners are in custody since 11.11.2025 and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. [2026:RJ-JP:12674] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-16085/2025] 3. Learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that plot in question initially allotted to Smt. Beenu Devi and complainant purchased the same from Smt. Beenu Devi, but later on a forged patta has been issued in favour of one Deepanshu Yadav with regard to the same plot in qustion. 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 learned counsel for the parties, especially the fact that alleged offenes are triable by Magistrate and in identical FIRs, benefit of bail has been granted to the petitioners by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners- (1). Shyam Lal Meena S/o Shri Gulab Meena and (2). Ramjilal Meena S/o Shri Kalyan Meena shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is [2026:RJ-JP:12674] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-16085/2025] transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/27-28