Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:899) on 7 January, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:899]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13136/2024
Jagdish Singh S/o Khet Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Bherunda, P.s. Thanwala, Dist. Nagaur. (At Present Lodged In
Sub Jail, Parbatsar, Dist. Nagaur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.J. Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP
Mr. Krishan Gopal Khatri for
complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
07/01/2025
This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been
filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with
F.I.R. No.72/2024 registered at Police Station Thanwala, Dist.
Nagaur, for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the
material available on record.
As per the prosecution, the petitioner by luring the
complainant party in a false hope of getting higher returns, made
them to invest huge sums in his investment/property project. As
per the prosecution, the petitioner had also cheated a number of
villagers for an amount of more than Rs.5,00,00,000/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned
[2025:RJ-JD:899] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-13136/2024]
counsel submitted that before taking the investment from the
complainant party, they were informed about the risk involved in
the financial/ property related investments in the market. Learned
counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, when the money
invested by the complainant party did not give expected returns,
the petitioner has been roped in a false criminal case.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in
judicial custody; the investigation against the petitioner has
already been concluded and the trial of the case will take
sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted
to the accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
Learned counsel for the complainant- Shri Krishna Gopal Khatri
submitted that the petitioner has been charged with causing huge
financial losses to the complainant party. Learned counsel
contended that accused-petitioner systematically and in a pre-
planned manner, by making false promises to the complainant
party defrauded them of their hard-earned money. Learned
counsel further contended that now-a-days, financial crimes have
increased manifold and, therefore, looking to the seriousness of
the accusations levelled against the accused-petitioner, he does
not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the
complainant has placed reliance on the following judgments
passed by different High Courts:-
1. Chandra Shekhar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (CMP (Main)
No.2168/2021)
[2025:RJ-JD:899] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-13136/2024]
2. Rajesh Kumar Kashyap vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (Bail
Application No.158/2020)
3. Kirti Ranjan Bastia vs. State of Odisha (BLAPL No.8881/2019)
4. Jasdeep Singh Bains vs. State of Union Territory Chandigarh
(2004 CriLJ 2318)
5. S.E.B.I vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
((2014) 8 SCC 751)
6. Vijender vs. State of Haryana (CRM-M-20769-2024)
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the
offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are
exclusively triable by Court of Magistrate. True it is, that the
allegations against the petitioner are very serious but prolonged
detention of an accused pending trial for offences triable by
Magistrate, would unnecessary result in elongation of his sentence
and the same would tantamount to the petitioner being virtually
sentenced before the actual judgment of conviction is passed
against him by the competent criminal Court. It it also to be
noticed that the learned Public Prosecutor has not shown any
apprehension that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there
is possibility of his fleeing away from the country or tampering
with the evidence or creating hindrance of any sort in the smooth
and speedy trial.
This Court also prima facie finds that the investigation of the
case has already been completed and the charge-sheet has also
been filed before the competent criminal Court. Thus, without
[2025:RJ-JD:899] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-13136/2024]
expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court
is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS
is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Jagdish
Singh S/o Khet Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R.
No.72/2024 registered at Police Station Thanwala, Dist. Nagaur,
shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided
he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of
Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his
appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and
whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
189-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
