Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Urn: Crlmb / 9131U / 2026Amar Singh ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jp:22204) on 22 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:22204]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal 2nd Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5102/2026
Amar Singh Rathore S/o Shri Bhagirath Singh, Aged About 42
Years, R/o 1134/47, Ward No. 47, Pratap Nagar, Lohakhan,
Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan (Presently Confined
In Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Kabra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP
Mr. Ashok, Dy.SP, SOG (IO), present
in person
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
Date of conclusion of arguments : 08/05/2026
Date on which the judgment was reserved : 08/05/2026
Whether the full order or only the
operative part is pronounced : Full Judgment
Date of pronouncement : 22/05/2026
1. The present second bail application under Section 483 of
BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Amar Singh
Rathore S/o Shri Bhagirath Singh seeking bail in respect
of a criminal case registered as FIR No.32/2019 dated
23.08.2019 registered at P.S. SOG District - Jaipur, for the
offence under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A
and 120B IPC and 65 of IT Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the matter and the
investigation against him is complete and he is no more
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 02:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:22204] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-5102/2026]
required in investigation. He further submits that there are
no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The applicant does not
have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the
applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate
with trial, which will take time.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that first bail
application of petitioner was dismissed on 15.03.2024 and
thereafter he has preferred SLP before Hon'ble Supreme
Court and a liberty was granted to him to file a fresh bail
application for grant of bail before the trial court. He
submitted that pursuant to liberty granted to him, a fresh
bail application was filed before learned trial court, which
was dismissed on 25.03.2026 and now the petitioner is
before this Hon'ble Court. He further submitted that
petitioner was arrested on 13.11.2022 and since then he is
in custody. He also submitted that the period of custody is
more than three years and six months and considering the
charges, period of custody is too much; therefore, on the
ground of custody alone, the petitioner is entitled to be
released on bail.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner, while relying upon order
dated 31.01.2026 passed in Criminal Case No. 285/2024,
submitted that still the matter is at the stage of framing of
charge and the trial court has not framed the charge, which
has resulted into delay in trial and on this basis he is entitled
for bail. He also referred order dated 30.01.2026 passed in
Bail Application No. 15138/2025, Shaitan Singh versus
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 02:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:22204] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-5102/2026]
State of Rajasthan, and submitted that identically placed
Shaitan Singh was granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this
Hon'ble Court on the ground that trial has been delayed and
accused has right of speedy trial as guaranteed under Article
21 of Constitution of India. He also submitted that even
accused Yashopad Singh and Girdhar Singh were released on
bail by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court on
30.05.2023. He also referred order dated 17.12.2024 and
submitted that this Hon'ble Court had dismissed bail
application of Devi Singh, but Hon'ble Supreme Court has
allowed the bail of Devi Singh. He further referred order
dated 22.08.2023 and submitted that Vasudev Singh and
Ummed Singh were also granted bail by a coordinate Bench
of this Hon'ble Court. He also referred order dated
15.03.2024 and submitted that Rajendra Singh, Ram Singh,
Jaswant Singh and Girdhar Singh were granted bail by
coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court. He further referred
order dated 12.04.2023 and submitted that Kevalchand,
Gautam and Dinesh were granted bail by this Hon'ble Court.
5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the maximum
allegation upon the petitioner is that he worked as CEO of
the Society, but that too only for a limited period. He also
submitted that the cooperative society worked under the
directions of the Board and the entire responsibility vested
with the Board and present petitioner is not individually
responsible for any of the acts approved by the Board, and
he is just a paid employee of the society and having no
interest in society.
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 02:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:22204] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-5102/2026]
6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public
Prosecutor, who referred to report received from SOG and
submitted that present petitioner was working as CEO and
he is an important and responsible person for day-to-day
operations of Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society. He
further submitted that total ₹1100 crores were distributed as
bogus loans and in distributing said loans, 60,000 forged
loan applications were prepared. He also submitted that the
acts of present petitioner are serious in nature and
maximum punishment prescribed is life imprisonment;
hence, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
7. On the basis of complaint regarding irregularities and
illegalities committed by Sanjivani Credit Cooperative
Society, SOG has inquired into the matter and during
pendency of investigation, it came to the notice that after
opening 237 branches, the Society had collected ₹953 crores
from 2,21,147 investors/depositors. The Society had created
bogus loan accounts and thereby advanced ₹1100 crores to
60,000 bogus persons. The SOG has found that Vikram
Singh and his family members were systematically involved
in syphoning off the money in clandestine manner from the
society. The material available on record indicates that in the
year 2017-18, the present petitioner worked as CEO and
during his tenure, loans amounting to ₹393 crores were
sanctioned and distributed. Police has also filed charge-sheet
and presently the matter is pending at the stage of framing
of charge. The first bail application of the present petitioner
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 02:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:22204] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-5102/2026]
was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on
15.03.2024.
8. The petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by
filing SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 20528/2025 and the same
was dismissed on 08.05.2025. While dismissing the SLP, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioner to
file a fresh bail application for grant of bail before the trial
court raising all the pleas and contentions. The petitioner
thereafter filed a fresh bail application before the trial court,
which came to be dismissed on 25.03.2026. The material
available on record indicates that the petitioner is facing
charge under Section 409 IPC as well, and the maximum
punishment prescribed is life imprisonment. A list submitted
by SOG indicates that 25 criminal cases were registered
against the petitioner and in some of them, the petitioner
has not been arrested as investigation is still in progress. A
copy of order-sheet dated 31.01.2026 indicates that the
accused had filed an application for clubbing/consolidating
12 criminal cases together. The said application was disposed
of on 31.01.2026, which means that the trial has also been
delayed by the accused themselves. Therefore, the
prosecution cannot be held responsible for the delay.
9. It is expected of the trial court, which is seized with the
matter, to expedite the trial and to keep in mind that the
accused has a right of speedy trial. In case any accused is in
custody for quite some time, say six months or more in a
Magistrate triable case, then the matter should be given
sufficient priority so that the accused may not face
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 02:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:22204] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-5102/2026]
unnecessary detention during trial. There is no doubt that
Shaitan Singh was released on bail by this Court. We agree
with the proposition that personal liberty is a priceless
treasure of a human being and is basically a natural right.
Section 346 of BNSS mandates that a trial be conducted
expeditiously, ideally on a day-to-day basis, and
unwarranted or unreasonable requests for adjournment
should be refused.
10. Ultimately, Shaitan Singh, who was an employee of the
Society and was in custody since 20.09.2019, was granted
bail. Similarly, other accused persons namely Yashopad,
Girdhar Singh, Vasudev Singh, Ummed Singh, Kewalchand,
Gautam Singh, Dinesh, Rajendra Singh, Ram Singh, Jaswant
Singh were granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
Another accused Devi Singh was granted bail by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court after dismissal of his bail application on
15.03.2023. In the present case, the first bail application of
the present petitioner was dismissed on 15.03.2023 along
with Devi Singh. Devi Singh was granted bail by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 17.12.2024, whereas the bail application
of the present petitioner was dismissed on 08.05.2025.
However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh bail
application on the grounds raised by him.
11. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the
petitioner was merely an employee of the Society and had
no role in sanctioning loans to any person. Admittedly, the
petitioner was working as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
during the period 2017-18. The investigating agency has
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 02:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:22204] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-5102/2026]
inquired into the matter and prepared a report showing that
loans amounting to ₹393 crores were sanctioned and
distributed during the tenure of the petitioner. The CEO is
the principal executive officer of the Society/Bank and
therefore, he cannot claim that he is not a responsible
person. When a loan is sanctioned to a bogus or fictitious
person, then certainly the sanctioning authority is
responsible for sanction of such type of loan. The claim of
the petitioner that he was merely a paid employee is not
tenable.
12. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from that of
other accused persons who were granted bail, as the
petitioner had a major role to play along with the Directors
and principal stakeholders, therefore, the petitioner cannot
claim parity with those who have already been enlarged on
bail. The pace of trial is very slow as till January, charges
had not been framed. Therefore, it is appropriate to direct
the trial court to expedite not only the framing of charges
but also to fix the matter on a day-to-day basis.
13. Considering the gravity of allegations, as also the role and
involvement of the present petitioner, I am not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner on any of the grounds advanced
by learned counsel for the petitioner.
14. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and fix the matter on day-to-day basis. The trial court is further directed not to adjourn the matter except in cases of grave urgency. The trial court is also directed to conclude the trial as early (Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 02:05:05 PM) (Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:12 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:22204] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-5102/2026] as possible, preferably within a period of two years from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
15. Thus, the second bail application preferred by Amar Singh Rathore under Section 483 of BNSS is hereby dismissed.
16. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to learned trial court through e-mail.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 23/PREETI VALECHA/663 (Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 02:05:05 PM) (Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:13 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)