Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8217 (RAJ)

YOGENDRA SINGH S/O BHAIRUSINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/7925/2026 · 2026-05-21

Praveer Bhatnagar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:21612] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7925/2026 Yogendra Singh S/o Bhairusingh, Age 39 Years, R/o Borda, Tehsil Kotdi, Police Station Paroli, District Bhilwara, Raj. Present Pti, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Pander, District Bhilwara. (At Present Confined In Central Jai Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7927/2026 1. Basanti Kumhar D/o Shri Sitaram And W/o Shri Gajanand Kumawat, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Khora Bissal, Tehsil Ramupra, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Gajanand Prajapat S/o Shri Sarvanlal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o House No. 222, Chothu Baba Kumhar Ki Dhani, Than Khora Bissal, Police Station Khora Bissal, Tehsil Jalsu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Presently Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Godara Mr. Madan Lal Jat Mr. Mukesh Dudi Dr. Shivendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 21/05/2026 1. These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioners. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.98/2024 registered at [2026:RJ-JP:21612] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7925/2026] Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS and SOG for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 66(D) of IT Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that prima facie offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC is not made out against the petitioners as the petitioners have not forged the document. It is also contended that in the judgment of Sheila Sebastianb Vs. R. Jawahraj, (2018) 7 SCC 581 at para 30 held that the person who has forged the document will fall within the purview of Section 464 of IPC and not the person who has merely used it. It is also contended that the petitioner though attempted to use the document for selection to the post of III grade teacher, however, at the time of verification of documents, their candidature were rejected and the accused-petitioners have not gained the employment on the basis of the said documents and there are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioners. It is also contended that order of no coercive action were granted against many other co-accused by the Co-ordinate bench vide orders dated 09.04.2026, 28.03.2026, 24.01.2025 and 17.10.2025. The accused-petitioners are in custody since long and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, these bail applications of the accused-petitioners may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed these bail applications and contended that the accused-petitioners have applied for the post of teacher Grade-III and in that examination, they submitted the forged document certifying themselves to be a [2026:RJ-JP:21612] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7925/2026] taekwondo sports persons, thus, they attempted to get selected for the post of teacher Grade-III examination conducted in the year 2022, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, the bail applications of the accused-petitioners may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not desirable to express anything upon the merits of the case. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and the fact that they are in custody since long and the matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate, therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 6. Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely: 1. Yogendra Singh S/o Bhairusingh, 2. Basanti Kumhar D/o Shri Sitaram And W/o Shri Gajanand Kumawat and 3. Gajanand Prajapat S/o Shri Sarvanlal, in connection with FIR No.98/2024 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS and SOG, shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J 84 & 86 /ashu/416