State of Rajasthan, through PP v. For

: Mr. Vipin Sharma with Mr. Amit Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor Shri Dharamram Gila, Addl. S.P. SOG, Jaipur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 16/09/2025 Order

1. The instant 3rd bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.13/2024 registered at Special Police Station (S.O.G.), Jaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the allegation against the accused-petitioner is that some fake documents of education qualifications were found in the mobile cell phone of the accused-petitioner which was forwarded to him by one of the accused named as Subhash Punia. [2025:RJ-JP:37646] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-7192/2025]

3. Learned counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2024 and the charges have been framed against him on 24.09.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471/120 IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act however, all the offences were triable by the Court of Magistrate. He has also referred the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of co- accused, namely, Pramjeet Singh, Mandeep Kumar and Pradeep Kumar Sharma whereby, they have ordered to be released on bail on the ground that trial of the case will take considerable time.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submits that the allegations against the accused-petitioner are of serious and grave nature.

5. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record.

6. This Court vide order dated 09.09.2025, enlarged the co- accused, namely, Sarita Kadvasra and Jitendra Yadav on bail observing as under:- “9. As per the facts on record, the charges have been framed against the accused petitioners on 09.12.2024 and 30.09.2024 respectively. The accused petitioners are in custody since 05.07.2024 and after framing of charges against them long back i.e. more than 8 to 10 months, not even a single witness has been examined so far and the trial has not proceeded even a step ahead. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the bail application of one of the co-accused namely Pramjeet in Criminal Appeal No(s).____of 2025 Singh (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No(s).9413/2025) has observed as under:- "4. Having regard to the following: that the appellant is in jail since 10.04.2024 in connection [2025:RJ-JP:37646] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-7192/2025] with a Magistrate triable offence; there are multiple accused and 49 witnesses are to be examined; and therefore, there is no likelihood of the trial being completed in near future, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. 5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.01.2025 is set aside qua the present appellant. 6. The appellant shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Trial Court concerned may deem fit and proper in the circumstances to impose."

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the bail application of one of the co-accused namely Mandeep Kumar in Criminal Appeal No(s).____of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No(s).9324/2025) has observed as under:- "7. Having regard to the submissions made as also that the appellant has been incarcerated since 11.04.2024 in a Magistrate triable offence, bearing in mind that the likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future is remote, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The 8. impugned order dated 12.05.2025 is set aside qua the present appellant."

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the bail application of one of the co-accused namely Pradeep Kumar Sharma in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).10338/2025 has observed as under:- "2. Petitioner was arrested in connection with Crime No.13 of 2024 registered at Special Police Station (SOG), Jaipur District ATS & SOG, Rajasthan for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66 of the Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, 3. and perused the material placed on record, we are of [2025:RJ-JP:37646] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-7192/2025] the considered view that the petitioner has made out case for interference with the impugned order dated 12.05.2025. 4. Considering the totality of circumstances and also the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 10.04.2024, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on such terms as may be fixed by the Trial Court, unless, of course, required in other case(s). Ordered accordingly."

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) in para 42 and 43 has observed as under:- "42. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is: whether the same is possible in the present case. 43. There are seventeen accused persons. Statements of witnesses run to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, are voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that the accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or temper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet."

13. As far as the submissions made by learned GA- cum-AAG that the bail application of one of the co- accused Jogendra Singh has been dismissed by this Court recently, this Court deems proper to observe that the case of the present accused petitioners is distinguishable from the case of the co-accused Jogendra Singh for the reason that the allegation in the matter is of issuing forged documents relating to [2025:RJ-JP:37646] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-7192/2025] educational qualification in the name of the OPJS University. The co-accused Jogendra Singh is the owner of the OPJS University, whereas the present accused petitioners were the employees of the said University for a particular period. 14. Having considered the submissions made by counsels for both the parties, the facts which came out are that the accused petitioners are in custody for last more than one year, charges have been framed against them on 09.12.2024 and 30.09.2024 respectively and not even a single prosecution witness has been examined so far even after passing of 8 months from the framing of charges. The offences for which charges framed against the accused petitioners are all triable by Magistrate. There is no progress in trial. One of the accused-petitioner is a woman. It is well settled principle that one can not be kept 15. in custody for indefinite period without any substantial progress in the trial of the case. In the present matter, after framing of charges against the petitioners about 8- 10 months, not even a single witness has been examined so far.”

7. Taking into totality of the facts and circumstances of the case so also the allegations against the accused-petitioner and more particularly the fact that the charges against the accused- petitioner have been framed on 24.09.2024 and thereafter, till date no prosecution witnesses have been examined and so also the observations as quoted above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

8. Accordingly, the third bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner named above in connection with the aforesaid FIR shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to [2025:RJ-JP:37646] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-7192/2025] the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. Ashish Kumar /5 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J