Order Sheets Show Only Custody Extensions: Rajasthan High Court Grants Fourth Bail, Calls for Trial Court Training

Published: 4 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

The Rajasthan High Court allowed the fourth bail application of a man in custody for more than one and a half years in a land-fraud case triable by a Magistrate, after the trial court's order sheets showed little beyond extensions of judicial custody (paras 9, 12-13). Observing that Presiding Officers and their readers lack proper training, the Court said a training mechanism is needed at the Rajasthan Judicial Academy and placed the order before the Chief Justice (paras 17-18).

Order Sheets Show Only Custody Extensions: Rajasthan High Court Grants Fourth Bail, Calls for Trial Court Training

Judgment Intelligence

Bail Granted

Ramswaroop v. State of Rajasthan

2026:RJ-JP:45188

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 17404/2026

Court: Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision: 3 November 2026
Bench: Justice Ashok Kumar Jain
Relevant Acts & Sections: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 453, 504 and 120-B

Final Outcome

Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two like sureties, on conditions against tampering with evidence and reoffending, and on attendance at trial. The order is to be emailed to the trial court and placed before the Chief Justice (paras 15-16, 18).

Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 3 November 2026

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

Only one witness had been examined in a Magistrate-triable case, with the petitioner in custody since 12 May 2025 (paras 7-9).
Order sheets from 19 September to 28 October 2026 showed only extensions of judicial custody (para 12).
Because the trial court failed in its duty to conclude the trial early, the fourth bail application was allowed (paras 13, 15).
Presiding Officers and readers need training at the Rajasthan Judicial Academy; the order goes to the Chief Justice (paras 17-18).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner is accused in FIR No. 162/2022 of Police Station Muhana, Jaipur, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 453, 504 and 120-B IPC, of selling land on the basis of a fake agreement to sell and fabricated documents (paras 1, 6). Arrested on 12 May 2025, he had three earlier bail applications rejected or withdrawn; rejecting the third on 1 May 2026, the Court noted that no witness had been examined after charges were framed (paras 3, 7). His counsel said only one witness had been examined since and relied on Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (para 3). The Public Prosecutor called the allegations grave (para 4).

Court's Findings

The Court noted that the offence is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class, that the petitioner had been in custody for more than one and a half years and that the pace of the trial was very slow (para 9). Only PW-1, a complainant, had been examined, and a coordinate Bench had granted the petitioner bail in two of the four cases against him (paras 8, 11). The Court recorded the Supreme Court's observation in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar that a person who sells the complainant's property claiming to be its owner cheats the purchaser, not the owner, and that forgery under Sections 467 and 471 IPC is not then made out (para 10). The order sheets of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 18, Jaipur, from 19 September to 28 October 2026 showed no effective proceedings beyond extending judicial custody and repeating the previous order (para 12). Holding that the trial court had failed in its duty to conclude the trial as early as possible, and that a person cannot be kept behind bars for an unlimited period while waiting for justice, the Court granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits (paras 13-14).

Legal Principle

On a successive bail application, the trial court's own order sheets are relevant. Where they show only extensions of judicial custody and no effective proceedings, and the accused has spent long in custody for an offence triable by a Magistrate, earlier refusals do not prevent bail (paras 9, 12-14).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The order turns on the trial court's own order sheets, which the defence placed on record (para 12). On a successive bail application founded on delay, it helps to show what each hearing date actually achieved. The Court recorded the Supreme Court's view in Mohd. Ibrahim, but it granted bail on custody and delay without any opinion on the merits (paras 10, 13-14). The remarks on training in para 17 are an observation placed before the Chief Justice, not a direction to a named officer. Compare Anandraj v. State of Rajasthan, where the Court refused indefinite custody because the prosecution was lax in producing witnesses.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Mohd. Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar Criminal Appeal No. 1695/2009 (Supreme Court)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ paras 3, 10
Where the accused sells the complainant's property claiming to be its owner, it is the purchaser, not the owner, who is cheated; no offence of forgery under Sections 467 and 471 IPC is made out in such a case.