The court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. It observed the petitioner's conviction in a domestic harassment matter, outstanding default in paying imposed fines, and acceptance that his allegations led to family estrangement. The court held that bail was not the appropriate remedy.
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.
[2026:RJ-JP:15741]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2400/2026
Javir S/o Raseed, R/o Ghatmika, Police Station Pahari, District Deeg (Raj.), Presently Resident Lehsar Police Station Kaman District Deeg (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Aarif Mohammed for |
|---|---|
| Mr. Bhanu PratapSaini | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP |
| Mr. R.S.Shekhawat |
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order
15/04/2026
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr ;g tekur izkFkZuk&i= iqfyl Fkkuk uxj ftyk Mhx esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 106@2025 vijk/k varxZr /kkj 318¼4½] 61¼2½ Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk esa tekur dk ykHk fn, tkus dh izkFkZuk ds lkFk izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
cgl lquh xbZA fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks izdj.k esa feF;k lafyIr fd;k x;k gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ yxHkx 40 fnu ds foyEc ls ntZ djobZ xbZ gSA mudk rdZ gS fd 304000@&:i;s fookg gsrq fy, tkus vkSj nqxquk [kpZ djus lEcU/kh vk{ksi >waBs gSa D;ksfd tks jkf'k ifjoknh vfHk;qDrx.k dks nsuk crkrk gS] mruh jkf'k esa rks og Lo;a gh lkjk lkeku [kjhn ldrk Fkk tks og vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls 'kknh esa fn, tkus dh ckr dg jgk gSA mudk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ij jkf'k ysus dk vk{ksi ugha gS] Qksu ij xkyh xykSp djus ,oa jkf'k okfil ykSVkus ls bUdkj djuk ek= crk;k x;k gSA mlds fo:) iwoZ dk dksbZ vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc) ugha gSA izkFkhZ ls fdlh izdkj dh cjkenxh ugha dh tkuh gS] ,slh fLFkfr eas mls vfxze tekur dk ykHk fn;k tk,A
[2026:RJ-JP:15741]
[CRLMB-2400/2026]
(2 of 2)
blds foijhr fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd ,oa fo}ku vf/koDrk ifjoknh dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr us ifjoknh dh iqf=;ksa ds fookg esa nksxquh jkf'k nsus ds uke ij >kalk nsdj fnukad 05-04-2024 dks 304000@&:i;s fy, gSa ftldh jlhn Hkh dsl Mk;jh esa lfEefyr gSA lkFk gh mDr jkf'k vnk dh xbZ Fkh mls fxurs gq, izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ,oa lgvfHk;qDr dk QksVks Hkh gSA mudk rdZ gS fd vfHk;qDr Hkh vU; vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk mDr /kks[kk/kM+h esa 'kkfey FkkA iSlksa dh cjkenxh dh tkuh gS rFkk vfHk;qDr }kjk Qksu djds xkfy;ka vkfn nsus lEcU/kh dkWy fMVsy ekStwn gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k dks vfxze tekur dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk,A
nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k x;kA i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u
fd;k x;kA
i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) ;g vfHk;ksx gS fd mlus lgfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk feydj ifjoknh dh iqf=;ksa dk fookg de iSlksa esa djokus dk >kalk nsdj muls 304000@&:i;s dh jkf'k izkIr dhA mDRk jkf'k izkIr djus dh jlhn dsl Mk;jh ij gS rFkk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr Hkh lgvfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk jkf'k izkIr djrs gq, QksVks esa nf'kZr gks jgk gSA ifjoknh }kjk izLrqr ifjokn esa Hkh izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk :i;s izkIr djuk ,oa ckn esa ifjoknh dks eksckby Qksu ij iSls ekaxus ij ykSVkus ls bUdkj djus rFkk xanh&xanh xkfy;ka nsus dk rF; Hkh vafdr fd;k x;k gSA vHkh :i;ksa dh cjkenxh dh tkuh gS rFkk vfHk;qDrx.k ls xgu vuqla/kku dh vko';drk gksuk crk;k x;k gSA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izFke&n`"V~;k ,slk izrhr ugha gksrk gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks izdj.k esa feF;k :i ls lafyIr fd;k tk jgk gksA vr% izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, bl Lrj ij izkFkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k dks vfxze tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA
ifj.kker% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr vfxze tekur izkFkZuk&i= vLohdkj dj fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J
AJAY KUMAR SINGHAL /49
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for anticipatory bail given his conviction and recent default in paying the fines imposed by the family court.
Whether the infringement of family bonds and acceptance of the allegation of cheating justifies granting anticipatory bail.
Javir
State Of Rajasthan
SHUBHA MEHTA
AJAY KUMAR SINGHAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
