Kavita Singh W/O Vikram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:5316]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3180/2025

Pratul Kumar @ Rocky S/o Sugreev Singh, R/o House No. 705, Gali No. 16, H-Block, Premnagar Ist, Police Station Premnagar Nagloi, Delhi. (At Present In District Jail Sikar).

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

Mahavir Prasad S/o Jivanram, R/o Village Dugoli, Police Station Siakr, District Sikar.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2727/2025

¶12

Kavita Singh W/o Vikram Singh, R/o 2/18, Block J-2, Near Ankit General Store, Krishna Bihar Sultanpuri, C-Block, Police Station Sultanpuri, North-West Delhi, Presently Residing At E-101 Tenant Mukesh Krishna Bihar Sultanpuri, C-Block, Police Station Sultanpuri, North-West Delhi. (Presently Confined In District Jail Sikar)

¶13

----Appellant

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶16

Mahaveer Prasad S/o Jeevanram, R/o Dugoli, Sadar Sikar, Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2728/2025

¶19

Munshiram Bhaladar Son of Shri Danaram, R/o Nawalgarh Road, In Front Of Devaji Ki Pyau, Behind Shriram Coaching, Jat Colony, Sikar, Raj. (At Present In District Jail Sikar)

¶20

----Appellant

¶21

Versus

¶22

The State of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶23

Mahavir Prasad Son of Jeevan Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Resident of Vill.- Dugoli, District-Sikar (Raj.)

¶24

----Respondents

¶25

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3159/2025

(2 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:5316]

[CRLAS-3180/2025]

Vimla W/o Badriprasad, R/o A-114, Mangeram Prak Phase2, Budhbihar, C-Block, Police Station Budhbihar, North-West Delhi. (At Present Confined In District Jail Sikar)

¶30

----Appellant

¶31

Versus

¶32

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶33

Mahaveer Prasad /so Jeevanram, R/o Dugoli, Sadar Sikar, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶34

----Respondents

¶35

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Umesh Vyas, Adv.
	Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv.
	Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Punia, PP
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. Shubham Kumar Sharma

¶36

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶37

Order

¶38

1. Date of conclusion of arguments : 21.01.2026

¶39

2. Date on which the judgment was reserved : 21.01.2026

¶40

3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced : Full Judgment

¶41

4. Date of pronouncement : 07.02.2026

¶42

********

¶43

These Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved of the orders dated 14.11.2025, 18.09.2025, 03.10.2025 & 09.10.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sikar rejecting the bail applications preferred on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.125/2025 registered at Police

[2026:RJ-JP:5316]

[CRLAS-3180/2025]

(3 of 6)

Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar for offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 316(2) & 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNS’). After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 61(2), 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111(2)(b), 111(3) & 111(4) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015).

¶48

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submit that the matter is of civil nature. Arguing the case of appellant, Pratul Kumar @ Rocky, his counsel submits that appellant is not named in the FIR and even during investigation, no specific role has been assigned to him. Arguing the case of appellants, Kavita Singh, Munshiram & Vimla, their counsel submit that the appellants have not prepared any fabricated and forged documents as alleged and have not played any fraud with the complainant and also not received any money from the complainant as alleged in the FIR. Counsel submit that there is lack of evidence to connect the appellants with the alleged crime. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against appellants, Pratul Kumar, Munshiram and Kavita Singh whereas one other FIR No. 354/2022 has been registered against the appellant, Vimla at Police Station Budh Vihar, Rohini, Delhi for the offences under Section 43 and 188 of the IPC. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submit that appellants Kavita and Vimla are in custody since 19.06.2025, appellant- Pratul @ Rocky is in custody since 30.10.2025 whereas

(4 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:5316]

[CRLAS-3180/2025]

appellant- Munshiram is in custody since 26.07.2025. Further custody of the appellants would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶53

Learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. It is submitted that material available on record shows that the appellants have actively participated in the commission of the alleged crime. Counsel submit that the accused persons in a very planned manner, hatched a conspiracy and played fraud with the complainant and received huge amount of Rs.90 lakhs in cash from the complainant in lieu of sale consideration of a piece of land. It is further submitted that the appellants made fake ID cards and used them to defraud the complainant. It is also argued that one, Narendra Singh prepared a video wherein one Dilip (co-accused Jitu Rao urf Jitendra Rana) who was introduced as son of Smt. Meera, can be seen taking the cash from the complainant and appellant- Munshiram can also be seen in the said video. It is submitted that the bail applications of co-accused Kailash Chand and Jitu Rao urf Jitendra Rana have already been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.11.2025. Counsel submit that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the appellants, their role in the alleged crime as well as gravity of offence, benefit of bail should not be extended to the appellants.

¶54

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 5. In the instant case, appellants Kavita Singh, Munshiram Bhaladar & Vimla hatched a conspiracy and received huge amount

[2026:RJ-JP:5316]

[CRLAS-3180/2025]

(5 of 6)

in cash from the complainant side as sale consideration for a piece of land, which is not owned by them. While playing fraud with the complainant, appellant Vimla showed herself as Meera, owner of the land. It has also come on record that the appellants were in constant touch with each other as number of calls have been exchanged between them. There is ample evidence on record which shows the involvement of the appellants Kavita Singh, Munshiram Bhaladar & Vimla in the commission of the alleged offence. Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties; as also looking to the role attributed to the appellants, this Court does not find it a fit case to enlarge the appellants namely, Kavita Singh, Munshiram Bhaladar & Vimla on bail.

¶59

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal Nos.2727/2025, 2728/2025 & 3159/2025 preferred on behalf of appellants Kavita Singh, Munshiram Bhaladar & Vimla stand dismissed. However, they would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of the complainant.

¶60

So far as appellant Pratul Kumar @ Rockey is concerned, his case is distinct from the case of the other accused persons as there is no allegation against him of receiving any amount from the complainant and no specific role in the larger conspiracy has been attributed to him. Moreover, he has no criminal antecedents.

¶61

Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the fact that no allegation of receiving

[2026:RJ-JP:5316]

[CRLAS-3180/2025]

(6 of 6)

money from the complainant has been levelled against the appellant Pratul, as also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against him and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellant Pratul Kumar @ Rockey on bail.

¶66

Consequently, the Criminal Appeal No. 3180/2025 preferred on behalf of Pratul Kumar @ Rocky is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sikar (Raj.) in Misc. Bail Application CIS No.804/2025 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Pratul Kumar @ Rocky S/o Sugreev Singh arrested in connection with FIR No.125/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees Only) and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶67

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these criminal appeals (bail) and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶68

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶69

Manoj Solanki/-

Kavita Singh W/O Vikram Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavita Singh W/O Vikram 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaptan and Ors. Vs State

Manju Gouttam D/O Vidhyadhar Gautam W/O Govind Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishna Kumar Vyas Son of Shri Lalit Kumar Vyas, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pratul Kumar @ Rocky S/O Sugreev Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vimla W/O Badriprasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Munshiram Bhaladar Son of Shri Danaram Vs the State of Rajasthan