Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Devendra Singh S/O Shri Shivraj Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:28079) on 25 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JP:28079]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 3456/2025
Devendra Singh S/o Shri Shivraj Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/
o J-672, Ajad Nagar, Rakdi Sodala, Police Station Sodala, Jaipur.
(Presently Confined In Central Jail At Jaipur.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 4017/2025
Pankaj Soni S/o Shri Jugal Kishore, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Plot No. 62, Shanti Nagar, Sodala, P.s. Sadar, Jaipur West,
Rajasthan. (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramit Pareek
Mr. Virendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl.G.A.
Mr. Sudhir Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
(Through Video Conferencing)
Order
25/07/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of
accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 854/2021 2. Concerned Police Station Mansarovar (Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:50:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:28079] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3456/2025] 3. District Jaipur Shahar (South) 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC 5. Offences added, if any Section 447 of IPC
6. Date of passing of impugned 09.01.2025
order in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous II Bail Application
No. 3456/2025
7. Date of passing of impugned 13.01.2025
order in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous II Bail Application
No.4017/2025
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against them and
his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at
play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail
to the accused-petitioners and they have been made accused
based on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
applications and submits that the present case is not fit for
enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the
niceties of the matter. Indisputably, the petitioner – Devendra
Singh is behind the bars since 27.04.2024 and the petitioner
– Pankaj Soni is behind the bars for more than 230 days in
this case. The offences alleged are triable by a Court of
Magistrate. Previous bail application of the petitioners was
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:50:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:28079] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3456/2025]
dismissed by this Court on 03.12.2024 on the ground that
“they could have been apprehended by the police after
around three years of the incident after an incessant effort”.
But some more time have lapsed in this case. All the similarly
situated persons have been granted bail either by the trial
Court or by this Court. The co-accused in the present case
were granted bail by this Court, but the order was challenged
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said petition came to
be disposed of by giving a liberty to the complainant to move
a bail cancellation application before the High court, and upon
doing so, the bail earlier granted to the accused, Sanjay
Kumar Jangid and Dontesh Jangid, was cancelled by this
Court on 03.12.2024, which was subsequently stayed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 03.02.2025,
passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1632/2025
and then the case of the petitioners therein was considered to
be fit for grant of bail. The petitioner has a strong arguable
case and his case is not distinguishable in any manner from
those who have been enlarged on bail. Similarly placed
persons must be treated equally, has been the principle of
parity. Considering the overall facts and circumstances,
particularly, the fact that offences alleged are exclusively
triable by a Court of Magistrate, charge-sheet has already
been filed and similarly situated persons have been granted
bail, thus, on the ground of parity, the petitioner too deserves
to be enlarged on bail. In light of these facts and
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:50:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:28079] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3456/2025]
circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of
bail to the petitioners in the present matter.
5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-
petitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on
bail provided each of them 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 their appearance
before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and
when called upon to do so.
6. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(FARJAND ALI),J
13 14 divya/-
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:50:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)