Dismissed¶¶21

Gyarsilal Saini S/O Chauthmal Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 May 2026CRLMB/5574/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; CRLMB-5574/2026; bail application dismissed 13.05.2026 by Justice Praveer Bhatnagar; Section 483 BNSS bail in Section 138 NI Act cheque-dishonour trial (Case No.302/2016); bail refused due to repeated absence from trial on five dates and prolonged absence 02.04.2024 to 23.03.2026; bail bonds forfeited 29.11.2023; custody since 23.03.2026; trial at final-argument stage; no comment on merits.

What did the court decide?

This Court declined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail, considering that he had remained absent during trial on five occasions over quite a long period and that the matter is listed for final argument. ¶¶20

Gyarsilal Saini S/O Chauthmal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:20294]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5574/2026

¶4

Gyarsilal Saini S/o Chauthmal Saini, R/o Plot No. P-6D, Engineers Colony, Manyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur. (At Present Accused Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Gurjar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, PP For Complainant : Mr. Ramavtar Neralpuriya, Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

13/05/2026

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of the accused-petitioner in connection with Case No.302/2016, titled as Shyojiram Choudhary vs. Gyarsilal Saini, for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2026, the petitioner bail bonds were forfeited by the Court on 29.11.2023, further conclusion of the trial may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶15

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the matter is listed for final arguments under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The petitioner remained absent on five

¶16

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-5574/2026]

¶17

[2026:RJ-JP:20294]

¶18

occasions i.e. on 27.03.2019, 25.02.2022, 24.04.2023, 29.11.2023 and lastly on 02.04.2024. The petitioner remained absent from 02.04.2024 to 23.03.2026, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

¶19

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶20

It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. Considering the fact that the petitioner remained absent during trial on five occasions and that too for quite a long period and that the matter is listed for final argument, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the instant bail application of the accusedpetitioner is hereby dismissed.

¶22

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶23

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-67

Gyarsilal Saini S/O Chauthmal Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyarsilal Saini S/O Chauthmal Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Seema Jat W/O Shri Ramlaxman Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Dayal Singh S/O Shri Lalchand Chaudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Saksham Kalra S/O Mahesh Kalra Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailashchand Gurjar Son of Shri Omprakash Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Khandelwal S/O Shri Radheyshyam Khandelwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Vaseem Khan S/O Hanif Khan Vs State of Rajasthan