[2026:RJ-JP:19602] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 791/2026 Hari Singh Yadav S/o Nathuram Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Bhoj Ki Dhani, Kotdi, Luharwas, Police Station Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.) At Present Shriram Market Me Dukaan, Shriram Market, Ranoli, District Sikar (Raj.) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Sikar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Addl. GC-cum- PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 28.04.2026 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 28.04.2026 3. Whether the full judgment or only operative part is pronounced Full 4. Date of pronouncement 14.05.2026 1. The instant 2nd bail application has been filed by the petitioner -Hari Singh Yadav S/o Nathuram Yadav, arrested in connection with FIR No.662/2023 dated 28.09.2023, Police Station Udyog Nagar (Sikar), District Sikar, for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of IPC and Sections 4, 5 & 6 of Prize Chitfund and Money CIR. Schemes Banning Act, 1978 and Sections 3, 21 & 5 of the Unregulated Deposits Scheme Prohibition Act, 2019. 2. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by [2026:RJ-JP:19602] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-791/2026] this Court vide order dated 19.12.2025 as withdrawn, thereafter the petitioner has preferred this second bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the Police, after conducting the investigation, have already filed the charge-sheet. It is further contended that Police have arrested the accused petitioner merely on the basis of suspicion in collusion of complainant party. Learned counsel further submits that no direct role has been attributed to the petitioner in the alleged offences and he has been wrongly implicated only on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that the similarly situated co-accused namely, Surendra Singh, has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.02.2026. It is further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since 26.07.2025 and the trial of the case will take long time, therefore, it is prayed that the accused petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the bail application and submits that as per charge-sheet, specific allegations have been leveled against the petitioner. It is contended that the Investigation has revealed the active involvement of petitioner in the commission of offence and sufficient material has been collected to substantiate the charges. Therefore, contended that the petitioner does not deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor perused the material available on record. 6. Upon perusal of the charge-sheet, it has transpired that in a [2026:RJ-JP:19602] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-791/2026] conspiracy with co-accused Ranveer Singh Bijaraniya and others, the petitioner allegedly induced innocent persons into a scheme of land purchase and promising higher returns. It appears that a fraudulent scheme in the nature of chain system was used to collect the funds dishonestly. It has also transpired that petitioner was operating a firm namely, Nexgen Developer and had opened a current account in ICICI Bank bearing No.673005601694. In the bank account of petitioner, there appears to be several financial irregularities and it shows that complainant Jagdish Prasad has also deposited amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.2,90,000/- into the scheme of land purchase and petitioner is actively involved in the alleged fraud. 7. This Court further noted that in the entire scam, around thirty companies with different names were opened in the entire chain. The opening of these companies and diversion of funds, is serious. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and the nature of offence, it is evident that the petitioner, through his firm “Nexen Developer” was allegedly involved in the fraud and there are various financial transactions or irregularities, which prima facie, establish active participation of the petitioner in the alleged offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, the second bail application is hereby dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J PAYAL DHAWAN/