Dismissed

Smt. Tripti W/O Shri Gaurav v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Mar 2025CRLMB/3286/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to statutory bail under Section 480(6) of BNSS as the 60-day period had not expired due to excluded periods for pending applications. Distinguishing a Supreme Court precedent, the bail application was dismissed, with liberty granted to approach the Trial Court if it failed to conclude the trial as mandated by law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Tripti W/O Shri Gaurav Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:12981]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 3286/2025

¶4

Smt. Tripti W/o Shri Gaurav, Aged About 38 Years, R/o House No. 40-41, Mangal Vihar, Budhsinghpura, Sanganer, PsSanganer, Jaipur (Presently Confined At Central Jail Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Chandi Charan Ratnu
	Mr.	Mohammad MohsinQureshi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	VijaySingh Yadav,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

20/03/2025

¶13

Instant Second Bail Application is preferred by petitioneraccused Smt. Tripti in a matter arising out of FIR No. 362/2024 dated 29.07.2024 registered at Police Station Sanganer Jaipur City (East) for offence under Section 420, 406 of IPC.

¶14

First Bail application was dismissed by this Court on 16.10.2024 as bail application No. 10175/2024. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring provision under Section 480(6) of BNSS submitted that in case, a trial is not concluded within 60 days in a non-bailable offence triable by Magistrate, then petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. He further submits that out of two other cases the petitioner was already released on bail in one case by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and another bail application is scheduled for hearing in next week. He also referred the order-sheets and submitted that the Trial Court has

[2025:RJ-JP:12981]

[CRLMB-3286/2025]

(2 of 4)

even not issued summon to any of witness. He further submitted that the petitioner has already made payment to claimant and nothing remains to be paid to any of the complainant. At last, he referred the judgment in case of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (2025) INSC 242 and submitted that even an accused who is facing charge in claim of ₹4 crore was extended bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶19

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted that besides present case two other case are of similar nature is pending against present petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Also considered the judgment in case of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (supra). 5. A perusal of order sheets indicate that a charge-sheet was filed on 10.10.2024 in FIR No. 362/2024 and a charge was framed under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC on 02.01.2025. Thereafter on next date of hearing on 10.01.2025 four witnesses were called but no witnesses was summoned but an application under Section 94 of BNSS was filed by present petitioner which was decided on 10.02.2025. The Trial Court has called two witnesses on 24.02.2025 but order sheets indicate that summons were not issued. On 24.02.2024 again, the matter was fixed for evidence on 10.03.2025. and summons were issued on 10.03.2025, thereafter matter was deferred for evidence on 24.03.2025.

¶20

In order to secure a bail under Section 480(6) of BNSS, a period of 60 days has to be counted from first date. Herein this case the petitioner is in custody and charge was framed on

[2025:RJ-JP:12981]

[CRLMB-3286/2025]

(3 of 4)

02.01.2025. On first date of hearing after charge, an application under Section 94 of BNSS was filed and same was disposed of on 10.02.2025, thus, this period has to be excluded. Herein, assuming the fact 60 days will complete on 10.04.2025, hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail under Section 480(6) of BNSS.

¶25

Now, comes on the merits of the case, first bail application was dismissed by this Court on 16.10.2024. We have considered the matter after submission of charge-sheet on 10.10.2024, therefore, the entire material submitted by police was considered by this Court while considering bail application on 16.10.2024. Now, the matter is fixed for examination of prosecution evidence and learned Trial Court in its letter dated 17.03.2025 has assured that all possible efforts will be made to conclude the trial as earliest.

¶26

In case of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (supra) the offence relates to cryptocurrency of value of ₹4 crore was subject-matter and while considering provision of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the petitioner-accused on conditon that the petitioner will deposit an amount of ₹35 lacs within a period of 6 months before the Trial Court but in case he fails to deposit then the bail stands automatically cancelled. We have considered the provision of Section 480(6) of BNSS (old provision under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.) and accordingly we found that the period of 60 days will complete on 10.04.2025. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of present judgment in case of Subhelal @

¶27

Sushil Sahu Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (supra).

[2025:RJ-JP:12981]

[CRLMB-3286/2025]

(4 of 4)

In view of aforesaid, there is no ground to release petitioner on bail at least till 10.04.2025, therefore, bail application preferred by present petitioner is hereby dismissed but a liberty is granted to the petitioner to move before the Trial Court in case Trial Court has failed to conclude trial as mandated under the law.

¶32

A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court.

¶33

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶34

MONU /185-S

Smt. Tripti W/O Shri Gaurav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Tripti W/O Shri Gaurav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Charan S/O Late Shri Bhonrya Vs Hargovind S/O Late Shri Ram Dev

Lalli Vs Inder Lal

Ramjilal S/O Hazari Vs Nandu Devi W/O Bhurya Alias Bhanwar Lal

Mahendra Verma S/O Late Shri Sitaram, Vs Jitendra Kumar S/O Shri Tej Singh

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vs Ramprashad S/O Shri Sita Ram

Prabhu Dayal and Ors. Vs Shri Ashok