Manjeet Singh S/O Iqbal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:27465]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 8330/2025

Manjeet Singh S/o Iqbal Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dudhi Police Station Nanakmatta, District Udhamsingh Nagar, Uttarakhand. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Kishangarhbas)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Manjeet Kumar
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. R.K.Gauttam & Mr. G.S. Gauttam
For State	: Ms. Aarti Sharma PP with
	Mr. Devendra Prasad, Police Inspector,
	S.H.O., Police Station, Bhiwadi Raj.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

23/07/2025

¶13

The accused-petitioner has filed this third bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.692/2023 registered with the Police Station Bhiwadi, District Bhiwadi for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B & 506 of IPC.

¶14

The first bail application bearing No.12159/2024 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.10.2024 and the second bail application bearing No.15261/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2025.

¶15

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the allegation as has been levelled against the accused petitioner is that he prepared a forged Aadhar Card in the name of Manjeet

(2 of 3)

[CRLMB-8330/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:27465]

Singh S/o Khajan Singh and executed a power of attorney in favour of Jagveer Singh with regard to the land in khatedari of Manjeet Singh S/o Khajan Singh. Learned counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 09.06.2024 and all the offences alleged against him are triable by the Magistrate. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant is in actual possession of land in question. Learned counsel also submits that the trial of the case will take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that maximum number of the prosecution witnesses are still to be examined by the learned trial Court.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

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

¶24

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Manish Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10185/2024 decided on 11.11.2024 has observed as under:-

¶25

“The petitioner is an accused in a case bearing FIR No.204/2024 registered with Police Station Nayi Mandi, Hindon City, District Karauli, Rajasthan for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 406 (Section 120 added in the charge sheet) of

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:27465]

[CRLMB-8330/2025]

the Indian Penal Code. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 5 months in jail.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State.

¶31

Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner.

¶32

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith on the usual terms and conditions to be decided by the concerned Court.”

¶33

Taking into consideration the totality of the fact and

¶34

circumstances of the case and so also the allegation against the petitioner, more particularly the fact that the allegation against the petitioner are triable by the Magistrate and he is in custody for more than one year, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶35

This third bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lac only) 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 he shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶36

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶37

ARTI SHARMA /35

Manjeet Singh S/O Iqbal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet Singh S/O Iqbal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Prabhati Devi Vs Lal Chand S/O Shri Kishan Chand

Rameshchandra Gautam S/O Shri Ramgopal Gautam Vs Rajendra Singh Jhala S/O Sh. Vikram Singh

Dhunaram Son of Chhajuram Vs Prem Chand Son of Banshidhar

R S R T C and Ors. Vs Suresh Chand Garg

Smt. Urmila Kanwar Wife of Shri Laxman Singh Rajawat Vs Smt. Lalita Devi Wife of Shri Ram Sharan Sharma

Beeban Widow of Late Noor Mohammad, Vs Ramkishan S/O Shri Bajranglal