SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 738

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar, J
MAHENDRA SINGH S/O SHIR RAGHUNATH SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 2024 / 2025



Advocates:
Mr. Govind Upadhyay, Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

The court emphasized that prolonged custody and the potential delay in trial are valid grounds for granting bail, irrespective of the accused's criminal record.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420 and 406 - Bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS for the accused-petitioner arrested in connection with FIR No.400/2024 for cheating and criminal breach of trust - Accused-petitioner claims false implication and requests bail due to prolonged custody and pending trial - Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing habitual offending and intentional dishonour of cheque. (Paras 1-3)

(B) Bail - Consideration for bail includes duration of custody and potential delay in trial - Court grants bail despite criminal record, emphasizing the accused's right to freedom pending trial. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The accused-petitioner borrowed Rs.10 lakhs from the complainant, issued a cheque which was dishonoured, and is in custody while the trial is pending.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the bail application considering the accused's prolonged custody and the nature of the allegations.

Issues: The main issues were whether the accused-petitioner should be granted bail considering the allegations and the duration of custody.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prolonged custody and the time required for trial justified the granting of bail, without commenting on the merits of the case.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Order :

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.400/2024 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar (Ajmer), District Ajmer, for the offence(s) under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the accused-petitioner borrowed Rs.10 lakhs from the complainant and issued a cheque and the said cheque was dishonoured. The accused-petitioner is in custody since long and trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, the bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the accused-petitioner is a habitual offender and he knowingly issued the cheque in favour of the complainant, despite knowing the fact that the bank has already been merged with the other bank and the cheque would get dishonoured. It is also contended that the cheque was issued in favour of the complainant with dishonour intention, therefore, considering the above facts, the bail application of the accused-petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the accused-petitioner is in custody since long and charge-sheet has already been produced before the concerned Court. Though, there are criminal record against the present accused petitioner, but considering the period of incarceration suffered by the accused petitioner, and the trial of the case may take considerable time, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

6. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Mahendra Singh S/o Shir Raghunath Singh in connection with FIR No.400/2024 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar (Ajmer), District Ajmer, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

7. The accused-petitioner is also directed to mark his presence on 25th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned Police Station. The SHO of the concerned Police Station shall send the presence report of the accused-petitioner to the trial Court, every month. In case of any breach of the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the petitioner for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top