Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 11217
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Ganesh Ram Meena, J
PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA SON OF SHRI AMAR CHAND SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 2853 / 2025
Mr. Ashish Chauhan, Mr. Prince Pal Singh, Mr. Virender Godara, Mr. Amit Punia, Mr. Dharma Ram Gila
The right to bail under Section 480(6) of the BNSS, 2023 is not absolute; the Magistrate has discretion to refuse bail based on the seriousness of the charges and potential societal impact.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 480(6) - Bail applications - Accused-petitioners in custody for over a year, charged with serious offences including forgery and conspiracy - Court finds trial not concluded within 60 days due to delays attributed to accused - Dismissal of bail applications upheld due to serious nature of allegations and potential impact on society. (Paras 2, 19, 20)
(B) Right to speedy trial - The court emphasizes that while the right to a speedy trial is important, it is not absolute and can be subject to judicial discretion based on the circumstances of the case. (Paras 14, 19)
(C) Discretion of Magistrate - The court reiterates that the Magistrate has the discretion to refuse bail under Section 480(6) of the BNSS, 2023, provided reasons are recorded. (Paras 4, 14)
Order
12/05/2025
1. All these third bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioners in connection with FIR No.13/2024 registered at Special Police Station (SOG), Jaipur District ATS & SOG for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008, hence, the same are being decided by this common order.
2. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submit that the accused-petitioners are in custody for last about one year. Counsels also submit that charge against the accused-petitioners have been framed on 24.09.2024 for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act which are triable by the Court of First Class Magistrate and the first date fixed for recording evidence was on 07.01.2024. Counsels further submit that trial against the present accused-petitioners has not been concluded within the period of 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence and therefore, the accused-petitioners are entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 480(6) of the BNSS , 2023. Counsels also submit that there is no credible evidence collected by the Investigating Agency so as to connect the accused- petitioners with the alleged offence. There are bleak chances of conviction of the accused-petitioners and looking to the number of witnesses, conclusion of the trial will take considerable time.
3. Counsels also submit that the Court in a similar matter has granted the benefit of bail to an accused under the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. (similar to Section 480(6) of the BNSS , 2023) vide order dated 04.11.2024 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12083/2024 ( Banwari Lal Kushwah Vs. State of Rajasthan ).
4. Learned Public Prosecutor-Mr. Amit Punia vehemently opposed the bail applications and submits that the provisions of Section 480(6) of the BNSS , 2023 which are similar to Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. does not command the Magistrate to mandatorily enlarge an accused on bail but the Magistrate concerned can also dismiss the bail application after recording the reasons for the same.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has also relied upon an order of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No.818/2025) decided on 18.02.2025.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that though the charges were framed against the present accused-petitioners on 24.09.2024 and the first date fixed for recording evidence was 07.01.2024. However, on the said date, a supplementary charge- sheet was filed against some other accused and hence, the evidence could not be recorded though, the two prosecution witnesses were present before learned trial Court. He further submits that during investigation conduct of certain other near about 50 persons were under cloud and the investigation is still pending as regards those persons. He further submits that the accused-petitioners in collusion with other co-accused persons have prepared and distributed huge number of documents regarding educational qualifications and sports certificates, on the basis of which many of them were recruited and got Government employment but later-on after scrutiny of their documents 154 persons have already been dismissed from service. The proceedings of dismissal from service of 34 more candidates who opted job on the basis of forged documents issued by the petitioners is under process and also the documents of certain more candidates who have been recruited under Government employment in the last few years are under scrutiny.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that since the investigation against certain other accused persons is also pending so far and if the accused-petitioners are released on bail, they may in any manner effect the investigation and influence the evidenc
