The High Court refused to quash the FIR against the petitioner, noting that the first bail application was rejected and no material change in circumstances occurred to justify a second petition. The court observed allegations of forgery and cheating regarding land records.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:5091]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 1009/2025
Shankarlal S/o Sh. Ramnath, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Sahu Seera, Tan Jamwaramgarh, Police Station Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Jhakar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Order
05/02/2025
izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls /kkjk 483 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr iqfyl Fkkuk gjekM+k ftyk t;iqj ¼if'pe½ esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 77 @2024 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471] 120&ch Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa tekur dk ykHk fn;s tkus gsrq ;g f}rh; izkFkZuk&i= is”k fd;k x;k gSA
cgl lquh xbZA fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk rdZ gS fd mls izdj.k esa feF;k lafyIr fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 21-10-2024 dks mldk izFke tekur izkFkZuk&i= fujLr gksus ds ckn mlds fo:) izdj.k esa izlaKku vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk pqdk gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd vuqla/kku ds nkSjku rFkkdfFkr nLrkost ftls izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk QthZ 'kadj iq= xksih cudj fu"ikfnr djk;k tkuk crk;k x;k gS] ij mldh vaxwBk fu'kkuh@gLrk{kj ds lEcU/k eas fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk dh dksbZ tkap ugha djkbZ xbZ gSA mudk rdZ gS fd og fnukad 17-06-2024 ls vfHkj{kk esa gS] vUoh{kk esa le; yxsxkA vr% mls tekur dk ykHk fn;k tk,A
[2025:RJ-JP:5091]
[CRLMB-1009/2025]
(2 of 2)
blds foijhr fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dk rdZ gS fd iwoZ esa tekur izkFkZuk&i= fujLr gksus ds ckn izdj.k dh ifjLFkfr;ksa esa dksbZ ifjorZu ugha gqvk gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr us ^^ejk gqvk O;fDr^^ 'kadj iq= xksih cudj ifjokfnuh dh Hkwfe dk QthZ ikWoj vkWQ vVkWuhZ cukdj foØ; bdjkjukek fy[kk gSA tehu dk iath;u Hkh gks pqdk gS rFkk mldh jkf'k izkIr dh gSA xEHkhj vijk/k gS] vr% mls tekur dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk,A
nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k x;kA i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u fd;k x;kA
i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr us] ;g tkurs gq, fd ifjokfnuh dh tehu mldh ugha gS] mls gM+ius ds mnns'; ls] ejs gq, O;fDr 'kadjyky iq= xksih ehuk ds LFkku ij Lo;a dks ifjokfnuh ds firk ds :i esa j[kdj ifjokfnuh dh tehu dh ikWoj vkWQ vVkWuhZ fy[kh ,oa mlds ckn ikWoj vkWQ vVkWuhZ gksYMj ds tfj, mDr tehu dk foØ; fdlh vU; dks dj fn;kA bdjkjukek ,oa eq[r;kjukek ij mldk QksVks Hkh yxk gqvk gS tks bu nLrkostksa dh miyC/k izfr ls nf'kZr gSA vfHk;qDr }kjk lksps&le>s <ax ls ,slk vijk/k fd;k tkuk izFke&n`"V;k izdV gks jgk gSA iwoZ esa mldh tekur dk izkFkZuk&i= fujLr gksus ds i'pkr~ izdj.k dh ifjLFkfr;ksa esa mlds i{k esa dksbZ lkjoku ifjorZu Hkh ugha gqvk gSA vr% izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ekeys ds xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ fVIi.kh fd, fcuk mldh vksj ls izLrqr tekur dk ;g f}rh; izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA
ifj.kker% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr tekur dk ;g f}rh; izkFkZuk&i= vLohdkj dj fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J
AJAY KUMAR SINGHAL /36
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second bail application is maintainable given that the first was rejected and no new circumstances have arisen?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shankarlal
State Of Rajasthan
SHUBHA MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
