Allowed

Pooja W/O Shri Hari Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Aug 2025CRLMB/9526/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application under Section 483 BNSS by an accused in custody for over ten months in a cheating and forgery FIR. Citing delay in framing charges, voluminous charge-sheet with 23 witnesses, exclusive magistrate trial, and the petitioner being a woman, the court enlarged her on bail without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each to satisfaction of trial court.

Pooja W/O Shri Hari Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:32366]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 9526/2025

¶4

Pooja W/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Jhirana, Police Station Piplu, District Tonk Current Resident 43A, Sharmpath Mansarovar, Police Station Mansarovar Jaipur (At Present In Women Jail, Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Anshuman Saxena, Adv. Mr. Vishal Gurjar, Adv. Mr. Raj Gurjar, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP
For Complainant	: Mr. Gopal Gupta, Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order

¶11

19/08/2025

¶12

The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.226/2024, registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, District Jaipur, for the offence(s) under Sections 384, 406, 416, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of IPC.

¶13

The petitioner has moved the instant second bail application on the ground of delay in trial and long incarceration. It is contended that the first bail application was dismissed on 10.03.2025 and thereafter, charge-sheet has been produced against the petitioner and the trial Court has directed to frame charges against the petitioner, thereafter, the matter is lingering on for trial as the charge-sheet is voluminous containing 23 cited

[2025:RJ-JP:32366]

[CRLMB-9526/2025]

(2 of 3)

witnesses. It is further contended that the petitioner being a lady and is in custody for 10 months 9 days and the matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate and further trial of the case may take considerable time, there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner, therefore, the bail application of the accusedpetitioner may be allowed.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant have vehemently opposed the grant of second bail application. It is contended that the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2025 after considering the fact that the trial Court has directed to frame the charges against the petitioner and the other co-accused, however, the same has yet not been framed. It is also contended that the petitioner in connivance with the other co-accused received Rs.86,70,000/- from the complainant by impersonating herself as Bhuri Devi, as the disputed land belongs to Bhuri Devi. The allegations against the petitioner are grave and if the petitioner’s bail application is allowed then she may not appear before the Court, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

¶19

Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. This Court vide its order dated 10.03.2025 has elaborately dealt in with the merits of the case and accordingly dismissed the bail application of the petitioner. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has directed to frame the charges against the petitioner and the matter is kept pending at the stage of framing of charges and upon the application filed by the Complainant under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is in custody since 10 months 9 days and

[2025:RJ-JP:32366]

[CRLMB-9526/2025]

(3 of 3)

the matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate and considering the ground that the charge-sheet contains voluminous documents and 23 cited witnesses and there is no probability of conclusion of trial in near future and also after considering the fact that the petitioner being lady, therefore, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, this Court deems it proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused petitioner- Pooja W/o Shri Hari Singh, in connection with FIR No.226/2024, registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, District Jaipur, shall be enlarged on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for her appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶25

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶26

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-3

Pooja W/O Shri Hari Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja W/O Shri Hari Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Golu S/O Laxminarayan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar S/O Munshiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Devvrat Sangwan S/O Shri Narendra Sangwan Vs State of Rajasthan

Vakar Yunus @ Mohammad Vakar S/O Shri Usmman Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Alfaiz Urf Aalu S/O Yusuf Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Asha Singh S/O Darshan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan