Sunil Kumar S/O Baijnath Thakur Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2026)

Sunil Kumar S/O Baijnath Thakur Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail: in the event of arrest, the petitioner is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, subject to (i) making himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, (ii) not directly or indirectly making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts, and (iii) not leaving India without previous permission of the Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS should be granted to the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 297/2024 of Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur, for offences punishable u/Ss 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and u/Ss 420 and 409 of the IPC, 1860.

Court's answer

Considering the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and, in particular, the fact that the departmental inquiry into the improper distribution of essential articles is still under way, the Court deemed it just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur, is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner he shall be released on bail.

Key takeaways

Release on arrest is conditional on the petitioner furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the authority, subject to the listed conditions.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under S. 482 BNSS granted (order dated 12.01.2026, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ganesh Ram Meena, Rajasthan HC, Jaipur Bench) in connection with FIR No. 297/2024, Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur, alleging offences punishable u/Ss 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and u/Ss 420 and 409 of the IPC, 1860, arising from alleged embezzlement by improper distribution of essential articles at a fair price shop. The petitioner's fair price shop licence had been suspended vide order dated 22.12.2023 and subsequently cancelled; on his appeal, the District Supply Officer, by direction of the District Collector, vide order dated 10.12.2025 ordered revival of the licence keeping the inquiry pending. As the departmental inquiry remained under way, the Court extended anticipatory bail, directing release in the event of arrest on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, subject to conditions of availability for interrogation, abstention from inducement/threat/promise, and no departure from India without previous permission of the Court.

[2026:RJ-JP:1147]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 243/2026

Sunil Kumar S/o Baijnath Thakur, R/o Village Bhonipura (Panjipura), Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Tanisha Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

12/01/2026

This bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner u/S 482 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 297/2024, registered with the Police Station, Kanchanpur, District Dholpur for offence punishable u/S 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and u/S 420 and 409 of I.P.C. 1860.

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has been implicated in the case based on false and fabricated facts under the political pressure. He further submits that considering the allegation of embezzlement by not making proper distribution of the essential articles, the licence of the accused-petitioner of fair price shop was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.12.2023. He further submits that subsequent to that, licence of the fair price shop of the accusedpetitioner was also cancelled. It is submitted that against the

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:1147]

[CRLMB-243/2026]

order of cancellation of licence of the fair price shop of the petitioner, he preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Dholpur, and vide order dated 10.12.2025, the District Supply Officer in view of the direction of the District Collector Dhopur, ordered to revive the licence of the accused-petitioner keeping the inquiry pending.

The order of the District Supply Officer reviving fair price shop licence of the accused-petitioner keeping inquiry pending shows that the inquiry in view of the allegation against the accused-petitioner as regards improper distribution of the essential articles, is still under way.

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner further submits that the accused-petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and more particularly the fact that inquiry with regard to the improper distribution of the essential articles is still under way by the authorities of the departments, this Court deems it just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station, Kanchanpur, District Dholpur in F.I.R. No. 297/2025 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner he shall be released on bail, provided he

[2026:RJ-JP:1147]

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-243/2026]

furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to his satisfaction on the following conditions:-

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

(ii) that the petitioner 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

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

SHRUTI SHARMA /178