Allowed

Satyanarayan S/O Lt Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Aug 2025CRLMB/6023/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Upman allowed the bail application filed by Satyanarayan under Section 483 of BNSS. The court released the accused on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, noting that the offences were triable by a Magistrate and without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Satyanarayan S/O Lt Mangilal Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:30056]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6023/2025 Satyanarayan S/o Lt Mangilal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o House No. 111, Near Shiv Mandir, Bada Sogriya, P.s. Railway Colony, Kota Dist. Kota. (At Present Confined In District Jail Kota)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Anmol Dhakar

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order

¶9

05/08/2025

¶10

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.193/2022 registered at Police Station Railway Colony, District Kota City (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467,468, 471 & 120B of IPC.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is submitted that admittedly, petitioner has not received any amount from the complainant and he has been made accused in this case with the aid of Section 120B of IPC. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

(2 of 2)

[2025:RJ-JP:30056]

[CRLMB-6023/2025]

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

I have considered the contentions.

¶17

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially the fact that there is no allegation against the petitioner of receiving any amount from the complainant, as also considering the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application.

¶18

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Satyanarayan S/o Lt Mangilal shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶19

The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶20

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶21

LALIT MOHAN /76

Satyanarayan S/O Lt Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan S/O Lt Mangilal 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

Rahul Rathi @ Tinku S/O Rajkumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Singh Rathore S/O Shri Nand Kishore Singh Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan

Chetram Alias Kalu S/O Ramjilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahavir S/O Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kapil Jindal S/O Dhaneshchand Jindal Vs State of Rajasthan

Alijan S/O Rakmuddin Vs State of Rajasthan