ANIL SHYORAN S/O SHRI RAJPAL vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

[2026:RJ-JP:45024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
rd
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 16032/2026
CNR: RJHC020977522026 | URN: CRLMB / 29720U / 2026
Anil Shyoran S/o Shri Rajpal, R/o Village Kayamsar, Police
Station Ramgarh Shekhawati, District Sikar, Presently R/o
Laxminath Colony, Near Do Jati Balaji Temple, Fatehpur
Shekhawati, Police Station Kotwali, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District
Sikar, Presently Tenant At Flat No. 506, M.J.B. Atulaym
Apartment, Kareel Ka Bag, Jagatpura, Police Station
Ramnagariya, Jaipur. (Presently Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain with
Mr. Parth Sharma
Mr. Parth Vashisth
Mr. Aman Galav
Mr. Yatharth Agarwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP
Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Mahesh Chand, SHO, Police
Station Jawahar Circle
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, SHO,
Police Station Manoharpur
the then SHO, Police Station Jawahar
Circle
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
03/11/2026
Reportable
1. The instant third bail application has been filed on behalf of
the accused-petitioner under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. The
petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 653/2025,
registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur City
(Uploaded on 06/11/2026 at 05:47:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2026 at 06:06:10 PM)

(2 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JP:45024] [CRLMB-16032/2026]
(East), for offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3),
340(2), and 61(2) of the BNS.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide
order dated 30.04.2026 as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh
application. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the second bail
application directly before this Court without approaching the
concerned Session Court and the same was dismissed vide order
dated 10.09.2026.
3. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the offences punishable under Sections 318(4),
316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), and 61(2) of the BNS. The petitioner
is in custody since 10.12.2025. The charge-sheet was filed on
13.03.2026, and the trial is expected to take considerable time to
conclude.
3.1 Counsel further submits that there is no evidence available
on record that the six cheque-books and four ATM cards allegedly
recovered from the petitioner were ever used. The cheque-books
were blank and there is no evidence that the ATM cards issued in
the names of Priyanka Bhardwaj, Tushar, and two other account
holders were used by the petitioner. The six cheque-books, said to
belong to Aditya Sharma, Kusum Sharma, Karan Dhawan, and
Rawat Restaurant, were also blank, and the statements of the
persons concerned have not been recorded. Further, the relevant
bank details of the four ATM cards were neither obtained nor
included with the charge-sheet.
(Uploaded on 06/11/2026 at 05:47:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2026 at 06:06:11 PM)

(3 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JP:45024] [CRLMB-16032/2026]
3.2 On these facts, counsel argues that there is, prima facie, no
evidence that anyone was cheated or that the petitioner
dishonestly withdrew money from any alleged victim’s account
using the cheque-books or ATM cards. As the trial is likely to take
considerable time, counsel prays that the third bail application be
allowed.
4. In compliance with this Court’s directions, the Investigating
Officer, Mr Mahesh Chand, SHO, Police Station Jawahar Circle, who
filed the charge-sheet before the learned trial Court, is present
along with the current SHO of the same police station, Mr
Ashutosh Kumar Singh. In response to the Court’s questions, the
Investigating Officer acknowledged that the six cheque-books
allegedly recovered from the petitioner were unsigned and had
never been used. He also acknowledged that he had not recorded
statements of the persons from whom the cheque-books
belonged.
4.1 As regards the four ATM cards allegedly recovered from the
petitioner, the Investigating Officer stated that there was no
evidence that the petitioner had used them. He further conceded
that he had neither recorded statements of Priyanka Bhardwaj and
Tushar nor obtained the relevant bank statements concerning the
ATM cards.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposes the bail
application and submitted that four ATM cards and six cheque-
books were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He
also contends that several FIRs have been registered against the
(Uploaded on 06/11/2026 at 05:47:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2026 at 06:06:11 PM)

(4 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JP:45024] [CRLMB-16032/2026]
petitioner in different States. On these grounds, the Prosecutor
seeks dismissal of the bail application.
6. The Court has heard learned counsel for both parties and
examined the material on record.
7. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted for offences
punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3) 340(2),
and 61(2) of the BNS, and Sections 66(C) and 67(D) of the IT Act.
The Investigating Officer’s statement before this Court makes
clear that the cheque-books and ATM cards allegedly recovered
from the petitioner were never used by him. The record contains
no evidence that the petitioner withdrew any money using the
ATM cards. The cheque-books were blank and unsigned. It
therefore prima facie appears that the petitioner was implicated
on suspicion arising solely from the alleged recovery of cheque-
books and ATM cards that did not belong to him.
8. It is difficult to understand how the Investigating Officer
concluded that the petitioner had committed cheating or withdrew
money from the relevant accounts, when there is no evidence that
he used the ATM cards and no bank statements substantiating any
withdrawal. At most, the record suggests that the petitioner may
use the cheque books or ATM cards in the future. That possibility
alone, however, would not constitute cheating or otherwise attract
Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(2), 340(2) of BNS. Nor does
the prosecution allege that the petitioner forged the signatures of
any person to whom the cheque-books belonged. At most, the
petitioner’s conduct may fall within the category of theft, but it
does not amount to cheating or forgery.
(Uploaded on 06/11/2026 at 05:47:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2026 at 06:06:11 PM)

(5 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JP:45024] [CRLMB-16032/2026]
9. The registration of multiple FIRs against the petitioner in
different States cannot, by itself, justify denying bail, particularly
when no material on record prima facie establishes that he
cheated anyone or dishonestly withdrew money using the
recovered cheque-books or ATM cards. Accordingly, this Court
considers it appropriate to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.
Before parting, the Court observes that the learned Magistrate and
Sessions Court also failed to find out whether prima facie evidence
constituting the offences of cheating & forgery and without
thoroughly examining the merits of the case, they dismissed the
petitioner's bail application cursorily. The Courts below are
expected to examine at least the foundational facts on which an
accused has been charge-sheeted. Mere assertions in a charge-
sheet, unsupported by evidence gathered by the Investigating
Officer, do not, by themselves, establish an offence.
9.1 Furthermore, the investigation suffers from patent illegality
and the investigating officer's lack of understanding of basic legal
requirements. The Investigating Officer did not ascertain whether
the ATM cards recovered from the petitioner's possession had ever
been used, nor he recorded the statements of relevant persons.
No bank statements were obtained from the banks of the accounts
were maintained or kept in the ordinary course of business. No
efforts were made to verify whether the cheque-books belonging
to the six named persons were missing or whether those persons
were the account holders or not.
9.2 The Court would fail in its duty if it does not bring the matter
to the notice of the State's Director General of Police, with a
(Uploaded on 06/11/2026 at 05:47:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2026 at 06:06:11 PM)

(6 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JP:45024] [CRLMB-16032/2026]
direction to initiate a preliminary inquiry against the investigating
officers' alleged negligence and to take further action if the inquiry
establishes negligence under the applicable conduct rules.
10. Upshot of the above discussion, the third bail application
preferred by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 of the
B.N.S.S. is allowed. The accused-petitioner, Anil Shyoran, son of
Shri Rajpal , in connection with FIR No. 653/2025 registered at
Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur City (East), shall be
released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Judge, for his appearance before the Court concerned
on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. The
concerned trial Judge shall forthwith verify the address and the
contact details of the sureties through concerned S.H.O. before
releasing the accused-petition on bail.
11. The accused-petitioner is directed to mark his presence on
the 25th of every month before the concerned Police Station till
conclusion of the trial. The S.H.O. of the concerned Police Station
shall maintain a regular register recording the presence of the
accused-petitioner and shall forward the presence report to the
concerned trial Court on the same day every month without any
delay. In case of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the
learned Public Prosecutor shall be at liberty to move an application
seeking cancellation of bail before the concerned Court.
12. The accused-petitioner is directed to submit his present
address along with his mobile number to the concerned S.H.O.
within seven days from the date of his release. In case the
(Uploaded on 06/11/2026 at 05:47:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2026 at 06:06:11 PM)

(7 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JP:45024] [CRLMB-16032/2026]
accused-petitioner changes his address or mobile number, he shall
promptly furnish the updated particulars to the concerned S.H.O.
as well as to the learned trial Court.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police
for necessary compliance as per directions contained in Para 9.2
and also to the concerned trial Court i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jaipur Metropolitan-I, the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, and the concerned S.H.O. for strict
compliance.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
SOURAV-D-A/104
(Uploaded on 06/11/2026 at 05:47:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2026 at 06:06:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)