Allowed

Rohitashv S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Oct 2025CRLMB/4410/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS in a cheating/forgery FIR. The applicant had joined investigation per the interim order dated 02.05.2025. The court made that order absolute and allowed the bail application subject to conditions and bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail; interim order dated 02.05.2025 made absolute; release on arrest on personal bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties Rs.25,000 each, with standard conditions.

Rohitashv S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:43005]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4410/2025

¶4

Rohitashv S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, R/o Mohanvadi, Police Station Gothada, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶5

----Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Prashant Joshi For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶11

Judgment

¶12

27/10/2025

¶13

The present bail application has been filed under Section 482 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 24/2025 registered at Police Station Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) for the offence(s) under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2)(a) of BNS, 2023.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that vide order dated 02.05.2025, interim protection from arrest was granted to the applicant subject to the condition that applicant joins investigation. In compliance of the same, the applicant joined investigation.

¶15

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶16

Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the parties, considering that the accused-applicant has already joined

[2025:RJ-JP:43005]

[CRLMB-4410/2025]

(2 of 2)

investigation as directed vide interim order dated 02.05.2025 and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this court deems it appropriate to make the order dated 02.05.2025 absolute and allow the anticipatory bail application.

¶21

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) in FIR No. 24/2025 is directed that in the event of arrest of the accused-applicant Rohitashv S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶22

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶23

(ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶24

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶25

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶26

JKP/60

Rohitashv S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohitashv S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Kumar S/O Amar Chand Pooniya Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Bhatiya S/O Shri Rajkumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manraj @ Pintu S/O Late Hanuman Vs State of Rajasthan

Chaman Lal S/O Shri Motiram Vs State of Rajasthan

All India Fair Price Shop Dealers Federation Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rahul Choudhary S/O Chhagan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan