[2025:RJ-JP:40053]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11269/2025 Raju Prasad S/o Narayanlal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Jaichandrapura, Police Station Raisar, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur, District Jaipur).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11603/2025

1. Bhawani Shankar S/o Lalluram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Dhankon Ka Mohalla Beelpur, Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

2. Sanwarmal S/o Sujaram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Sirohi, Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).

----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Jain Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Shandilaya Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

25/09/2025

1. The present bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are filed by the applicant-accused Raju Prasad S/o Narayanlal, Bhawani Shankar S/o Lalluram and Sanwarmal S/o Sujaram seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.85/2025 dated 22.02.2025 registered at P.S. Samod, District – Jaipur Rural, for the offence under Section 318(4), 338, 326(3) and 61(2)

(a) of BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against them is complete and they are no more required in investigation. They further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicants accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. They also submits that the applicants undertake not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.

3. Learned counsel for applicant-accused Raju Prasad has submitted that present applicant was an attesting witness of power of attorney allegedly executed in favour of Bhawani Shankar. He also submitted that the role and involvement of an attesting witness, is very limited and he never enquires about the correctness and validity of power of attorney. He also submitted that present applicant-accused Raju Prasad is neither a beneficiary nor involved in conspiracy of execution of any document, in pursuant of power of attorney.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Bhawani Shankar and Sanwarmal have submitted that accused Sanwarmal is an attesting witness and his role is only to sign the execution of document. He submits that when executant has put his signature, he has only signed the document and he is not involved in any conspiracy relating to transfer of land. Learned counsel on behalf of Bhawani Shankar has submitted that he is not a part of conspiracy, rather this power of attorney is made available to him after signature. He also submitted that both the applicants-accused are in custody and there is no criminal antecedents against them. Though, learned counsel for applicant-accused Raju Prasad has submits that Raju Prasad is acquitted in almost all cases, he is placing on record the orders of acquittals filed by him.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. She has also filed a report received from concerned Police Station.

6. Learned counsel for complainant has also opposed the bail applications of the applicants-accused and submitted that present applicants-accused after hatching a conspiracy, has fabricated agreement to sell and power of attorney. He further submitted that none of the Khatedar of agricultural land has ever put a signature on power of attorney as 3 of the Khatedars, Neelima Singh, Smita and Girija Shah have not visited Jaipur to execute the power of attorney. He also submitted that still main accused Dharam Pratap Singh, who is aware about land of compla