State of Rajasthan, through PP vs For Petitioner(s)

Jitendra Yadav S/o Shri Jile Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Near Sunshine School, Singahana Road Byepass, Mahvir Police Chowki, City Police Station Narnaul, District Mahendragarh, Haryana. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). State of Rajasthan, through PP Versus ----Petitioner ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Sharma and Mr. Shivam Sharma in 10801/2025 Mr. Sajid Ali Khan in 10800/2025 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG Mr. Dharma Ram Gill, Additional S.P., SOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 09/09/2025 Order

1. These second bail applications have been filed by the accused petitioners under Section 483 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 13/2024 registered at Police Station SOG, Jaipur for [2025:RJ-JP:36439] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-10801/2025] offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC and Section 66D of IT (Amended) Act, 2008.

2. The earlier bail applications filed by the accused petitioner- Sarita Kadvasra and the accused petitioner-Jitendra Yadav were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2025.

3. Learned counsels appearing for the accused petitioners submit that both the accused petitioners are in custody since

05.07.2024 and charges against the accused petitioner-Sarita Kadvasra and the accused petitioner-Jitendra Yadav were framed on 09.12.2024 and 30.09.2024 respectively. Counsels submit that offences alleged against the accused petitioners and the charges framed against them are triable by Magistrate and looking to the custody period of the accused petitioners as they are in custody for more than a year, they deserve to be released on bail as there is no progress in trial.

4. Learned counsels for the accused petitioners further submit that after framing of charges against the accused petitioners on

09.12.2024 and 30.09.2024 respectively, not even a single witness has been examined so far.

5. It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the bail applications of the co-accused namely Paramjeet Singh, Mandeep Kumar and Pradeep Kumar Sharma, has observed that there are as many as 49 witnesses to be examined and there is no likelihood of the trial being completed in near future and the aforesaid co-accused persons were ordered to be enlarged on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:36439] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-10801/2025]

6. Learned counsels have also referred the judgment passed in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, as regards the right of speedy trial of the petitioner given under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Learned GA-cum-AAG opposed the bail applications and submits that there are serious allegations against the accused petitioners and their first application was dismissed by this Court after taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations against them. Learned GA-cum-AAG also submits that this Court recently has dismissed the bail application of one of the co- accused namely Jogendra Singh and therefore the present bail applications also deserve to be dismissed.

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

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 Singh in Criminal Appeal No(s).____of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No(s).9413/2025) has observed as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:36439] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-10801/2025] "4. Having regard to the following: that the appellant is in jail since 10.04.2024 in connection 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. 8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The 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 [2025:RJ-JP:36439] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-10801/2025] 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. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material placed on record, we are of 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." [2025:RJ-JP:36439] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-10801/2025]

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 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.

15. It is well settled principle that one can not be kept 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.

16. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts and so also the observations of the Hon'ble Apex court in the cases of co- accused persons namely Paramjeet Singh, Mandeep Kumar and [2025:RJ-JP:36439] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-10801/2025] Pradeep Kumar Sharma, this Court, without without making any comments on the merit/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused petitioners on bail.

17. Accordingly, these second bail applications are allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail provided that they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) each, together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) (each) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. Gaurav Srivastava /112-113 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J