CRLMB/1121/2026 of SHYAM LAL MEENA S/O SHRI GULAB MEENA Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

[2026:RJ-JP:13734] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 1121/2026 Shyam Lal Meena S/o Shri Gulab Meena, R/o Village Chhatarpura, Post Dantali, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Presently Accused Petitioner is Confined in Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Deepak Sharma for Complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 02.04.2026 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 02.04.2026 3. Whether the full judgment or only operative part is pronounced Full 4. Date of pronouncement 23.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. after his first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Deepak Chauhan, submits that the complainant has lodged the impugned FIR bearing No.0486/2022 dated 27.11.2022 for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC at Police Station Ram Nagaria, Jaipur City (East). Learned counsel further submits that it has been stated in the FIR that the complainant purchased two plots bearing No.S-14 and S-15 in his and his wife–Preeti Meena's name, in the Residential Scheme namely Sh. Narsingh Arcade, floated by a private Residential Housing Society known as [2026:RJ-JP:13734] (2 of 9) [CRLMB-1121/2026] Narsingh Developers and Colonizers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the housing society'). 3. Mr. Deepak Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant has alleged that when he tried to enter into his property bearing Nos. S-14 & S-15, he was obstructed by the persons as named in the FIR including the present petitioner by not allowing him to construct his house. He further stated that accused person is threatening him to surrender the papers of the plot. 4. Learned counsel submits that Police, after conducting the investigation, has filed the charge-sheet bearing No.1/25 dated 30.12.2025 for offences under Sections 420, 406, 120-B & 384 IPC. He further submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences, as the land in controversy belongs to his father and other relatives, who are khatedars and owners of the land and they did some transactions with the Housing Society in the past. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 04.11.2025 and other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail either by the learned trial Court or the Coordinate Bench of this Court. In view thereof, it is prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. This Court, while dismissing the first bail application vide order dated 17.12.2025, noted that there are as many as seven FIRs including the present one against the present petitioner and other persons who are also khatedars and all were registered in the year 2022 and 2023, at the same Police Station with the same allegation. Considering the fact that so many FIRs were registered [2026:RJ-JP:13734] (3 of 9) [CRLMB-1121/2026] against the present petitioner and co-accused persons and in some of the matter, Police also noted some serious collusion between the present accused-petitioner and the other persons including the housing society , therefore, this Court directed the Investigating Officer of the said case to appear before the Court. In compliance of order dated 06.03.2026, Investigating Officer appeared before the Court and informed that the petitioner, son of one of the khatedars namely Gulab Meena who along with other khatedars, sold the land to the private Housing Society and has received a sum of Rs.8,62,000/- per bigha and the said amount was paid by the Housing Society to the father of the petitioner and other khatedars, with a receipt of Bank transaction, in terms of coordination and understanding between the khatedars & the Housing Society. It has been informed that the land was surrendered by khatedars as per understanding with housing society before the J.D.A. for the proceedings under 90-B of the the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and thereafter, the pattas were issued for the plots by the housing society as per the understanding between khatedars and the housing society . The Investigating Officer further informed that the housing society with the consent, understanding and total coordination of the other khatedars sold the respective plots and issued the possession letter along with site plan to the respective plot- holders. However, after issuance of pattas and possession letter to the respective plot-holders, on the basis of registered sale deed & agreement to sale etc., when the respective plot- holders tried to enter their respective plots, the petitioner and other khatedars obstructed the plot-holders and did not allow them to take [2026:RJ-JP:13734] (4 of 9) [CRLMB-1121/2026] possession and construct their houses, for which they have already paid the complete due consideration. 6. This Court, while interacting with the Investigating Officer , noted that the Investigating Officer who was posted at that relevant time in the past did not conduct fair and proper investigation in all the FIRs and there appears to be a serious collusion between the Investigating Officer, the khatedars and the developers of the housing society. 7. This Court also heard Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for complainant and after hearing the same, noted certain serious aspects of the matter. 8. This Court noted that the allegations made in all the FIRs are virtually the same as the petitioner stepped into his father's shoes and further, because his father, the khatedar - Gulab Meena, an illiterate man, so he actually did all the documentation and transactions and therefore, did not not allow the respective plot- holders to enter into their property and proceed with the construction. The housing society and colonizers created/issued pattas for 350 plots out of which 77 plots were sold to employees of the Railway Department and took money from almost all the plot-holders. On one hand, this Court, while carefully considering the conclusion as recorded by the Investigating Officer in connected FIR bearing No. 210/2022 dated 10.06.2022 in the Charge-sheet No. 1/25 dated 30.12.2025 , noted that the khatedars and the housing society executed various documents, which includes Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sale, Memorandum of Understanding, Development Agreement etc. for selling of the entire land. As per mutual understanding between the parties, pattas of the 350 Plots, as per the Charge-sheet, were [2026:RJ-JP:13734] (5 of 9) [CRLMB-1121/2026] issued by the Narsingh Arcade Housing Society and money was taken from the plot holders and also passed on to the khatedars in cash as well as in their bank account. A huge amount was exchanged in cash by the khatedars and the housing society. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deepak Chauhan, stated that they have not sold any land to the housing society or to any other person and the petitioner and other khatedars are still the owners of the land, who are also in possession of the same. However, learned counsel failed to satisfy this Court as to how such a significant amount of money, which also includes cash transactionS, was taken by khatedars from the housing society, when according to them, no transaction has taken place between them. Once they have received said amount either through cash or in their Bank accounts also, he failed to satisfy this Court that how no transaction can be said to have taken place between them in respect of land in dispute. This clearly shows that false statements were made in bail application during the course of arguments. 10. From the contents of the multiple FIRs as lodged against the petitioner and other khatedars, which transpires that khatedars, after taking money from the colonizers, who have also earned their respective shares, are not giving possession to the respective plot-holders, including the present complainant herein and threatening the plot-holders. Despite such serious allegations in respect of 350 plots, which make the complete issue serious in nature, this Court finds that the investigation has not been done fairly uptill now by the previous Investigating Officers. 11. On the query raised by this Court, what action was taken by petitioner against the society, if the petitioner and other khatedars [2026:RJ-JP:13734] (6 of 9) [CRLMB-1121/2026] have not sold any land to the housing society? In response, Mr. Deepak Chauhan, submitted that they lodged various FIRs against the housing society in the year 2020-21, long before the FIRs were lodged against them by the plot-holders. Mr. Chauhan, informed this Court that first FIR was lodged bearing No. 34/2020 for offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 3(1)(f) & 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) alleging therein that certain persons tried to encroach upon their land. In the other FIRs also the allegations were leveled against the housing society, however, in all these FIR, as per learned counsel, Police has submitted the Final Report and the protest petition has been filed by the petitioner and other khatedars, which is pending before the concerned Court. 12. It is surprising and shocking, as this Court noted that the petitioner, and other khatedars, have sold their land to the society and took huge amount against 350 plots on the basis of valuation, as jointly assessed by them, and submitted the papers to JDA for conversion of land. On that basis, the housing society sold the plots and issued Pattas and possession letters, however, now in collusion with the Society, the petitioner and other khatedars are obstructing plot-holders from entering into their properties. In case, the FIRs lodged by the khatedars against the housing society are genuine, the petitioner and the other khatedars ought to have taken some serious actions. The complainant and the other plot-holders have been cheated by petitioner and other khatedars in collusion with the housing society as they have lost their hard earned money and despite having the documents of possession and pattas issued by the Society in their name, they cannot enter into their property. [2026:RJ-JP:13734] (7 of 9) [CRLMB-1121/2026] 13. Mr. Chauhan, tried to impress this Court by submitting that petitioner has not executed any document and all the offences are triable by Magistrate, and some of the accused persons have already been enlarged on bail either by the learned trial Court or by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, petitioner may also be granted the benefit of bail while maintaining parity with other co-accused persons. 14. However, this Court finds the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature and not properly investigated by the Police, who did not act fairly during the course of investigation. Mr. Chauhan failed to dispute the fact that petitioner's father Gulab Meena entered into the agreement dated 24.04.2003 with the housing society and the father of the petitioner gave a registered Power of Attorney dated 05.08.2004, which bears photograph, bio-metrics, thumb impression of the khatedar Gulab Meena along with signatures of other khatedars. The contents of the Power Attorney dated 05.08.2004 shows that the khatedhar Gulab Meena authorized the Director of the housing society to issue provisional pattas, receipts and site plans, except to receive the money, and to take all the necessary actions in respect of the said land before various Government Departments. It is in pursuance to Power of Attorney that the housing society and the Colonizer acted and undertook necessary steps, including surrender of land before the JDA for conversion under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and thereafter, issued the pattas to the plot-holders and collected money. 15. The Bank statement produced before this Court by the counsel for the complainant remained undisputed, which clearly indicates that complete amount received by respective khatedars [2026:RJ-JP:13734] (8 of 9) [CRLMB-1121/2026] from the housing society between the period from 2003 onwards. Various other documents were also placed on record including a document titled as Pratigya Patra dated 14.08.2020, executed between the khatedars including the present petitioner and one Prem Surana whereby khatedars have now sold the land to new person namely, Prem Surana, conferring all the rights upon the said person, as per terms of the agreement. 16. This Court also considered the list of plot-holders, which bears the names of various persons. Another important and interesting fact has been noted by this Court that nowadays the khatedars of the land, while presenting themselves to be innocent, first enters into agreement with the Housing Societies and then sells the plots to the innocent people and after taking consideration amount, they sell the plot further to second and third party and create serious complications. Thereafter, they try to give the complete issue a picture of the civil dispute by filing civil suits and writ petitions so that the action in respect of the criminal offence may not be taken against them. By adopting such kind of modus operandi, action of the khatedars shows fraud upon innocent persons who purchase d the plots after paying the relevant consideration, relying upon documents, assurances and verification from the JDA and other local authorities, are put to grave loss. 17. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the present petitioner, being son of the khatedar Gulab Meena, who was 60 years old , an illiterate man, in the year 2004, had his serious involvement in the present dispute and considering the same, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power under Section 483 BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail. [2026:RJ-JP:13734] (9 of 9) [CRLMB-1121/2026] 18. Consequently, the criminal misc. second bail application is dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J PAYAL DHAWAN /225-S