Regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS by a 75-year-old accused of personation in a registered sale-deed in FIR No.332/2024. Considering the applicant's age, custody duration and that co-accused were already on bail, the Court allowed the bail application without commenting on merits.
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:42716]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12727/2025 Baijnath S/o Summera, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Jarah, Police Station Rajakheda, District Dholpur, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In District Jail Dholpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Ramu Dubey |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mr. |
Aman Agrawal, AAAG Vijay Singh Yadav, PP |
| For Complainant (s) | : Mr. |
Anil Jain |
| Mr. | Dushyant Jain |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDH Order
17/10/2025
This bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS seeking regular bail in FIR No.332/2024 registered at Police Station Chomu District Jaipur (West) for the offence(s) under Section(s) 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant is 75 years of age and the offences are triable by Magistrate. The allegation against the accused-applicant is that the accused-applicant has personated as Bahadur Singh in the registered sale-deed which was executed in favour of the Nahar Singh and Lakhan Singh on 24.07.2020. The witnesses to the registry were Mukesh and Ram Prakash. He states that the coaccused persons Nahar Singh, Mukesh and Rampal have been granted bail. The accused-petitioner has been in judicial custody
[2025:RJ-JP:42716]
[CRLMB-12727/2025]
(2 of 2)
since 24.01.2020. Investigation is complete and he is no more required for the investigation and the conclusion of the trial will take long time, hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail applications and has submitted the factual report dated 15.10.2025, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he is a beneficiary and there is no ground to enlarge the accusedapplicant on bail as he has also created forged documents of the original owner, therefore the accused-applicant should not be enlarged on bail.
Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Shiva Khandal @ Sonu S/o Shri Shravan Kumar Khandal , shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the stipulation that the petitioner shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
DIKSHA MISHRA /135
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a 75-year-old accused in custody since January 2020 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC should be granted regular bail when co-accused have been enlarged on bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Baijnath S/o Summera
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
Baljinder Singh Sandhu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
