Parity in bail matters does not apply when the role of the accused is distinct and central to the economic offense. Prolonged custody does not mandate bail if the accused is actively involved in the trial delay and the gravity of the charges is substantial.

Order :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. The present second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Amar Singh Rathore S/o Shri Bhagirath Singh seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.32/2019 dated 23.08.2019 registered at P.S. SOG District - Jaipur, for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B IPC and 65 of IT Act.

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. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with trial, which will take time.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that first bail application of petitioner was dismissed on 15.03.2024 and thereafter he has preferred SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court and a liberty was granted to him to file a fresh bail application for grant of bail before the trial court. He submitted that pursuant to liberty granted to him, a fresh bail application was filed before learned trial court, which was dismissed on 25.03.2026 and now the petitioner is before this Hon’ble Court. He further submitted that petitioner was arrested on 13.11.2022 and since then he is in custody. He also submitted that the period of custody is more than three years and six months and considering the charges, period of custody is too much; therefore, on the ground of custody alone, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner, while relying upon order dated 31.01.2026 passed in Criminal Case No. 285/2024, submitted that still the matter is at the stage of framing of charge and the trial court has not framed the charge, which has resulted into delay in trial and on this basis he is entitled for bail. He also referred order dated 30.01.2026 passed in Bail Application No. 15138/2025, Shaitan Singh versus State of Rajasthan, and submitted that identically placed Shaitan Singh was granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on the ground that trial has been delayed and accused has right of speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. He also submitted that even accused Yashopad Singh and Girdhar Singh were released on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 30.05.2023. He also referred order dated 17.12.2024 and submitted that this Hon’ble Court had dismissed bail application of Devi Singh, but Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the bail of Devi Singh. He further referred order dated 22.08.2023 and submitted that Vasudev Singh and Ummed Singh were also granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court. He also referred order dated 15.03.2024 and submitted that Rajendra Singh, Ram Singh, Jaswant Singh and Girdhar Singh were granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court. He further referred order dated 12.04.2023 and submitted that Kevalchand, Gautam and Dinesh were granted bail by this Hon’ble Court.

5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the maximum allegation upon the petitioner is that he worked as CEO of the Society, but that too only for a limited period. He also submitted that the cooperative society worked under the directions of the Board and the entire responsibility vested with t