Santosh Shankar Rav Patil S/O Shri Shankarlal Tataya Sahib Patil Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:25942]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

1. S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8606/2025

Santosh Shankar Rav Patil S/o Shri Shankarlal Tataya Sahib Patil, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Mahanideshak Sahakarita Mishan, Address NHQ Icom, Plot Number 110, Pocket 27, Sector 24, Rohini, New Delhi, At Present Resident Of C-201 Amit Bloom Ambe, Ganv Near Nawle Bridge, Pune, Police Station Bharti Vidhyapeeth Katraj, District Pune Maharashtra. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶5

----Accused-Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

2. S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8614/2025

¶10

Santosh Shankar Rav Patil S/o Shri Shankar Lal Tataya Sahib Patil, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Mahanideshak Sahakarita Mishan, Address NHQ Icom, Plot Number 110, Pocket 27, Sector 24, Rohini, New Delhi, At Present Resident Of C-201 Amit Bloom Ambe, Ganv Near Nawle Bridge, Pune, Police Station Bharti Vidhyapeeth Katraj, District Pune Maharashtra. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶11

----Accused-Applicant

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

3. S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8647/2025

¶16

Santosh Shankar Rav Patil S/o Shri Shankarlal Tataya Sahib Patil, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Mahanideshak Sahakarita Mishan, Address NHQ Icom, Plot Number 110, Pocket 27, Sector 24, Rohini, New Delhi, At Present Resident Of C-201 Amit Bloom Ambe, Ganv Near Nawle Bridge, Pune, Police Station Bharti Vidhyapeeth Katraj, District Pune Maharashtra. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶17

----Accused-Applicant

¶18

Versus

¶19

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:25942]

[CRLMB-8606/2025]

For Applicant(s)	: Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vivek Sharma,Add.GA

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶26

Order

¶27

12/07/2025

¶28

As all the bail applications have been filed by the same accused-applicant against the order of dismissal of bail applications of the present accused-applicant pertaining to the various FIR(s), they are being heard and decided by the instant common order.

¶29

The present bail applications have been filed by the accused-applicant under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 against the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.07, Jaipur Metropolitan Second, Jaipur (Raj.) in connection with FIR Nos. 265/2024, 455/2022 & 264/2024, registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Jaipur (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC, 1860, by which the bail applications of the accused-applicant under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 have been dismissed.

¶30

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in these cases. Learned counsel argues that the charges against the accusedapplicant are for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC, which are triable by Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel also argues that the main allegation

[2025:RJ-JP:25942]

[CRLMB-8606/2025]

(3 of 4)

of hatching conspiracy and creating forged company for extorting money from various persons are against the other co-accused namely; Upendra Singh, Gyan Prakash Patel, Lalan Kumar etc. and not against the present accused-applicant. Learned counsel contends that the present accused-applicant is an employee of the main accused and neither any money has been received by the present accused-applicant nor any money has been deposited in the account of present accused-applicant. Learned counsel further contends that no recovery has been made in this matter from the present accused-applicant and he is behind the bars since long. Learned counsel also submits that as many as 18 other similar type of cases have been registered against the present accusedapplicant, out of which, in many of them, the accused-applicant has been enlarged on bail by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel prays that the charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take long time to conclude, therefore, the accusedapplicant be enlarged on bail.

¶35

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant placed reliance of the orders passed by Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Shankar Rao Patil Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 382/2024, 14562/2024, 3942/2024, 4611/2024 & 13477/2024 .

¶36

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

¶38

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the facts that the main allegation of extorting money

[2025:RJ-JP:25942]

[CRLMB-8606/2025]

(4 of 4)

from various persons is from co-accused namely; Upendra Singh, Gyan Prakash Patel, Lalan Kumar etc.; that the present accusedapplicant is said to be an employee of the main accused; that no recovery has been made from the present accused-applicant; that the charges levelled against the accused-applicant are triable by Judicial Magistrate; that in other similar cases, the accusedapplicant has been enlarged on bail by Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court and that the trial will take long time to conclude, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it proper to allow the bail applications filed by the accused-applicant.

¶43

Consequently, the bail applications filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 are allowed. It is ordered that accusedapplicant- Santosh Shankar Rav Patil S/o Shri Shankarlal Tataya Sahib Patil , arrested in FIR Nos. 265/2024, 455/2022 & 264/2024, registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Jaipur (West) shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and two solvent attested sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

¶44

The Accused-Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶45

Copy of this order be placed in each and every connected files.

¶46

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶47

Mohita /62, 63 & 69

Santosh Shankar Rav Patil S/O Shri Shankarlal Tataya Sahib Patil v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Shankar Rav Patil S/O Shri Shankarlal Tataya Sahib Patil 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

Bhanwar Saini @ Bhanwar Singh S/O Khilliram @ Ramkhiladi Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Yadav S/O Laxminarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Mahala Alias Lala S/O Shri Ramgopal Mahala Vs State of Rajasthan

Asha Devi S/O Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu @ Chuha S/O Mannulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Gangaram S/O Lohreram Vs the State of Rajasthan