Dismissed¶27

Anoop Sain S/O Late Shri Rameshchand Sain v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2025CRLMB/9457/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anoop Sain; bail application dismissed; Section 483 BNSS; BNS 308(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)(a), 62, 352, 351(2), 351(3); FIR No.90/2025 dated 18.02.2025; P.S. Vidyadhar Nagar Jaipur City (North); forged agreement to sell; Ramjilal; Rahul Taneja; JDA patta cancelled 21.05.2025; encroachment plot No.10/05 Housing Scheme Vidyadhar Nagar; valuable security fabrication; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; Justice Ashok Kumar Jain; 06/08/2025; CRLMB-9457/2025; custody since 08.06.2024.

What did the court decide?

There is no ground to presume that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser, as he allegedly played a key role in grabbing the property of another person who is not residing in town. ¶26

Anoop Sain S/O Late Shri Rameshchand Sain Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:30707]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9457/2025

¶4

Anoop Sain S/o Late Shri Rameshchand Sain, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Neem Darwaja Ahir Mohalla, Police Station Atalbandh, District Bharatpur. At Present Tenant House Nmo. 53A, Pawan Putra Vistar Colony, Panchyawala, Jaipur. (Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Saxena Mr. Anil Kumar Mohta Ms. Neha Garg For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manu Dave, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

06/08/2025

¶13

This instant application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the petitioner-accused in FIR No.90/2025 dated 18.02.2025 registered at P.S. Vidyadhar Nagar District – Jaipur City (North), whereby the petitioner-accused has charged under Sections 308(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)(a), 62, 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of BNS.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon grounds raised in bail application submits that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question is purchased by way of agreement to sell from Ramjilal and thereafter a Patta is issued by JDA so he is a

[2025:RJ-JP:30707]

[CRLMB-9457/2025]

(2 of 3)

bona fide purchaser and the petitioner is not having any information about any of the person and he is in custody since 08.06.2024. Further he submitted that the investigation relating to present petitioner-accused is complete and is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation. He further assures that in case, the petitioner-accused is required for further investigation, the petitioner-accused will be available for such investigation. He also submitted that the investigation/trial will take its own time and no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner-accused in custody.

¶19

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.

¶21

On basis of complaint of encroachment on JDA allotted plot No.10/05 under Housing Scheme Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, a report is registered and matter is investigated then it has come to notice that a forged agreement to sell is prepared in the name of Ramjilal and present petitioner, thereafter, the present petitioner has applied for patta in JDA and then JDA has issued patta but same is canceled on 21.05.2025. The police has found that Ramjilal, Anoop Sain and Rahul Taneja have conspired to fabricate the document (valuable security).

¶22

The offence is of grave nature where this petitioner accused has played a key role in grabbing the property of another

[2025:RJ-JP:30707]

[CRLMB-9457/2025]

(3 of 3)

person who is not residing in town. Therefore, there is no ground to presume that this petitioner is a bona fide purchaser. Thus it is not appropriate to allow bail application of the accused petitioner, at this stage.

¶27

In view of discussion made hereinabove, the bail application filed by Anoop Sain S/o Late Shri Rameshchand Sain is hereby dismissed.

¶28

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶29

MR/266

Anoop Sain S/O Late Shri Rameshchand Sain v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Sain S/O Late Shri Rameshchand Sain v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Son of Chhajuram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Varish S/O Attu Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Son of Bhola Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamal Kumar S/O Shri Mamchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Satish S/O Mansingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindra @ Kalu S/O Rishpal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan