The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal regarding a pre-arrest bail order. The court held that the appeal lacked specific prayers for execution under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC and no other party was impleaded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:29763]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1082/2022
Kundan Kumar S/o Ramakant, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Post Khandawa, Present R/o Newai, Tehsil Newai, Distt. Tonk (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
Kanhaiyalal S/o Bajranglal, R/o Lakha Wali Dhani, Shivaji Colony, Newai, Tehsil Newai, Distt. Tonk (Raj.).
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Saini, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Judgment / Order
04/08/2025
oknh@izkFkhZ@vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g vihy fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] fuokbZ] ftyk&Vksad }kjk nhokuh fofo/k izdj.k la[;k&12@2021 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 11-03-2022 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZ dk vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 o 2 lhihlh [kkfjt fd;k x;kA
vihy ij nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl lquh] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA
orZeku ekeys esa vihykFkhZ dk ;g vfHkdFku gS fd oknxzLr laifRr ghjkyky dh Fkh] ftlds }kjk fnukad 21-05-2012 dks foØ; vuqca/k dUgS;k yky ds i{k esa fd;k x;k vkSj dUgS;k yky }kjk fnukad 30-06-2020 dks vihykFkhZ ds i{k esa foØ; vuqca/k fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k] ftldh fofufnZ"V vuqikyuk gsrq okn izLrqr fd;k x;k vkSj mlds lkFk vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 o 2 lhihlh dk vkosnu Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;kA
fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vihyk/khu vkns'k fnukad 11-03-2022 ds ek/;e ls ;g Hkh vfHker izdV fd;k gS fd ghjkyky ewy [kkrsnkj bl
[2025:RJ-JP:29763]
[CMA-1082/2022]
(2 of 2)
izdj.k esa i{kdkj ugha gS vkSj vU; fVIi.kh djrs gq, vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 o 2 lhihlh dk vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k x;kA
fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd mijksDr vkns'k ikfjr gksus ds ckn oknh dh vksj ls ewy okn esa vkns'k 01 fu;e 10 lhihlh dk vkosnu is'k fd;k x;k Fkk] ftls Lohdkj djrs gq, ghjkyky ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dks i{kdkj ds :i esa la;ksftr fd;k x;k gS] vr% i'pkr~orhZ ifjfLFkfr esa ifjorZu vk pqdk gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd os vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 o 2 lhihlh ds ekeys esa Hkh vkns'k 01 fu;e 10 lhihlh dk vkosnu is'k djuk pkgrs gSa vkSj mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa orZeku vkns'k vikLr dj ekeyk izfrizsf"kr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ }kjk vihyk/khu vkns'k dks fof/klEer gksuk crkrs gq, vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
pwafd ewy okn esa ewy [kkrsnkj ghjkyky ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dks i{kdkj cuk;k tk pqdk gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g lehphu gksxk fd vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 o 2 lhihlh ds vkosnu esa oknh@vihykFkhZ dks vkns'k 01 fu;e 10 esa is'k djus dh Lora=rk nh tkos] vr% vihyk/khu vkns'k blh fVIi.kh ds lkFk vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd ewy Vh-vkbZ- izdj.k esa vkns'k 01 fu;e 10 lhihlh dk vkosnu is'k gqvk gS rks nksuksa i{kksa dks lqudj vkosnu rFkk ewy Vh-vkbZ- dk fof/kuqlkj fuLrkj.k fd;k tkosA
blh vuqlkj ;g vihy vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dj fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gS rFkk layXu LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
DINESH KUMAWAT /53
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court has the authority to allow the execution of a pre-arrest bail order under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC despite a lack of specific prayers in the appeal.
Whether the prerequisite requirements for issuing the pre-arrest bail order are changed in the facts.
Whether both parties be heard and be directed in the appeal if Order 39 Rule 10 is invoked.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kundan Kumar
Kanhaiyalal
Uma Shanker Vyas
Dinesh Kumawat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
