Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Shyam Lal Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 August, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.11497/2026)
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.11496/2026)
SHYAM LAL MEENA ..... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the
appellant; Mr. Kshitij Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent-
State of Rajasthan; and Mr. Yogesh Kumar Meena, learned counsel for
the de facto complainant-respondent No.2.
3. Appellant is aggrieved by orders dated 23.04.2026, passed by
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur
(briefly the ‘High Court’ hereinafter) whereby appellant’s bail
applications have been dismissed.
4.
Signature Not Verified
Appellant is an accused in FIR Nos.486/2022, and 210/2022
Digitally signed by
IRAMNAZ
Date: 2026.08.05
registered at Police Station Ramnagariya, Jaipur City (East), under
18:27:37 IST
Reason:
Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B and Sections 323, 341,
1
384, 420, 406, 120-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (forshort, ‘IPC’) respectively.
5. Accusation against the appellant is that his father and grand-
mother along with other Khatedars had sold land to a housing
society through a power of attorney holder. The housing society in
turn had sold the land to different purchasers. Grievance of the
purchasers is that despite payment of money, the plots of land in
question have not been handed over to them. He is accused of
forging documents to facilitate the fraud.
6. This Court vide Order dated 23.06.2026, had issued notice
pursuant to which respondent No.1-State of Rajasthan has filed
counter affidavit.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the culpability
or otherwise of his father and grand-mother cannot be passed on to
the appellant. He submits that it is the housing society who has
cheated the purchasers and not the Khatedars, therefore, the
grievance of the purchasers is mis-directed. That apart, he has been
in custody since 04.11.2025. He submits that investigation is
complete and charge-sheet has been filed. However no charges have
been framed. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail.
8. Learned State counsel has referred to the counter affidavit
filed by the State and asserts that considering the magnitude of
the crime, it will be premature to enlarge the appellant on bail at
this stage. He submits that appellant is a habitual offender and
has a number of criminal antecedents of similar nature.
9. Similar is the submission made by learned counsel for
respondent No.2 – the complainant. He has stated that appellant had
2
colluded with other accused persons to illegally prepare forged
documents. He has re-sold the land allegedly sold by his father and
grand-mother to the housing society. His role in the commission of
the offence is quite discernible. Therefore, appellant should not
be enlarged on bail.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on due
consideration, we are of the view that appellant deserves to be
enlarged on bail more particularly having regard to the period of
incarceration undergone and the fact that the alleged offences are
all magistrate triable. High Court, in our view, has gone deep into
the merits of the allegations against the appellant, which should
have been avoided.
11. Be that as it may, we set aside the impugned orders of the
High Court dated 23.04.2026 and direct that the appellant shall be
produced before the Trial Court within a maximum period of 7 days
from today whereafter the Trial Court shall enlarge the appellant
on bail on such terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate.
12. Appeals are accordingly allowed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………….J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
………………….J.
(ATUL S. CHANDURKAR)
NEW DELHI;
August 04th, 2026.
IZ
3
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-D
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11497/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-04-2026
in SBCRMSBA No. 1121/2026 passed by the High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan at Jaipur]
SHYAM LAL MEENA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 181384/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 11496/2026 (II-D)
IA No. 181381/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 04-08-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR
Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Adv.
Ms. Sheena Taqui, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Adv.
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Meena, Adv.
Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv.
Ms. Anju, Adv.
Ms. Shweta Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Abdul Gaffar, Adv.
Mr. Sahban Ali, Adv.
Mr. Rizvi Chowdhary, Adv.
Mr. Abdul Rahman Badar, Adv.
Mr. Mohammad Arbaz, Adv.
Mr. Rashid N. Azam, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
4
2. Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(IRAMNAZ) (CHETNA BALOONI)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(signed order is placed on the file)
5
