Rajveer Singh S/O Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:24303]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3938/2026 URN: CRLMB / 7019U / 2026

Rajveer Singh S/o Amar Singh, R/o 296 Officers Campus, Sirsi Road, Khatipura, Jaipur ( Presently Confined In Sub Jail Neem Ka Thana)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Kapil Gupta Ms. Anisha Yadav Mr. Sushil Yadav
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP
For Complainant	: Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri Mr. Prince Choudhary
	Mr. Bhagirath Singh Kuri

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

01/07/2026

¶13

The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.294/2025 registered at Police Station Sri Madhopur, District Sikar for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of IPC.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is facing allegations that, being a partner of M/s Raj Buildhomes, he misappropriated an amount of Rs.

[2026:RJ-JP:24303]

[CRLMB-3938/2026]

(2 of 3)

1,80,64,139/-. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a partner of the said firm holding a 55% share therein. Learned counsel submits that an agreement dated 07.10.2020 was executed between the complainant and the present petitioner. Though it has been mentioned therein that a partner cannot use the firm's funds for his personal purposes, however, the Partnership Deed dated 28.02.2018 executed between the parties specifically provides that any dispute arising between the partners shall be resolved through arbitration and the provisions of the Partnership Act will prevail. It is further submitted that, owing to the difference in the signatures of the complainant, authority had been given to the petitioner to withdraw the amount from the firm's account. Out of the amount so withdrawn, the petitioner paid the dues of the remaining partners as well as the liabilities payable to the contractors and other agencies. It is submitted that the withdrawals were made in the ordinary course of the firm's business and not with any dishonest intention. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the Agreement dated 07.10.2020 and the Partnership Deed dated 28.02.2018, the complainant had an efficacious remedy to seek redress by initiating appropriate proceedings before the competent forum and by invoking the arbitration clause. Therefore, the present dispute is essentially civil in nature and has been given a criminal colour. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.02.2026. Though 11 criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner, he has been discharged in five of them, while in the remaining cases he has been granted bail. The trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose

[2026:RJ-JP:24303]

[CRLMB-3938/2026]

(3 of 3)

would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody, consequently, the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner has misappropriated the amount which, in terms of the agreement, was liable to be paid to the complainant.

¶25

On consideration of the rival submissions and material available on record and in light of submissions made on behalf of petitioner but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. 6. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Rajveer Singh S/o Amar Singh , be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing till conclusion of the trial.

¶26

(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶27

225/Arun

Rajveer Singh S/O Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajveer Singh S/O Amar 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

Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Sharwan Lal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish S/O Shri Mohan Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Umardeen S/O Sumer @ Medu Vs the State of Rajasthan

Arjun Singh S/O Shri Mohan Singh @ Munshi Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeepsingh S/O Tejsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Nagar S/O Birdhi Nagar Vs State of Rajasthan