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

2026 Supreme(Raj) 522

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR 
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Kaushal Kumar, S/o. Mukesh Kumar - Petitioner 
Versus 
The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP. - Respondent 
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4379 of 2026 
Decided On : 23-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Surendra Singh Sunda
For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP.

Parity in relief is a significant consideration where co-participants are already at liberty and the recovery of property has been completed, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary, provided the applicant adheres to conditions ensuring procedural cooperation and compliance.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Offences related to property theft - FIR registered with significant delay - Principle of parity - Where co-accused have already been granted bail and the recovery of stolen items has been effected from other individuals, such circumstances constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of anticipatory bail. (Para 4)

(B) Bail Conditions - Exercise of judicial discretion - Court mandated to balance individual liberty with investigative requirements - Imposition of personal bonds, sureties, and restrictive covenants regarding witness intimidation and foreign travel represent standard procedural safeguards. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
An application for anticipatory bail was filed in relation to an offence of theft of electronic devices from a commercial premises. The contentions for relief included a delay in the registration of the criminal report, parity with other participants who had already been granted bail, and the fact that all relevant recoveries had been completed from other involved parties.

Findings of Court:
Upon evaluating the circumstances, specifically the delay in reporting, the evidence of parity with co-accused, and the completion of the recovery process, the court exercised its discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions regarding investigation cooperation and judicial constraints.

Issues: The central issue was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail given the delay in the crime report, the progress of the investigation regarding recoveries, and the parity with other participants in the alleged offence.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of parity, combined with the fact that the recovery of property was already satisfied, mitigates the need for custodial interrogation, justifying the exercise of discretion to allow the application provided the requester complies with conditions ensuring future cooperation.

Result: Anticipatory bail allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for bail applications. (Para 1)
2. conflicting arguments concerning fir delay and parity. (Para 2 , 3)
3. granting bail based on parity and evidentiary delay. (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 482 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 03/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Sawai Madhopur District Sawai Madhopur for the offence(s) under Section 380 of IPC and the learned Trial Court amidst the offences under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC dismissed the bail application before it.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that FIR in the instant matter is registered with a delay of approximately 13 days. It is submitted that the instant matter pertains to theft of mobile phones from the shop, and that the co- accused have already been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the recovery of the stolen items has taken place from the co-accused. It is submitted that the applicant is ready to abide by the conditions, if any, imposed by this Court while granting the concession of bail and is also willing to join the investigation as and when directed.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the present bail application.

4. Having heard the contentions made by the counsel representing both the parties, upon a perusal of the material available on record and taking note of the fact that that FIR in the instant matter is registered with a delay of approximately 13 days; that the instant matter pertains to theft of mobile phones from the shop, and that the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail; that the recovery of the stolen items has taken place from the co-accused; this Court is inclined to allow the anticipatory bail application.

5. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Kotwali Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur in F.I.R. No. 03/2024 is directed that in the event of arrest of the accused-applicant Kaushal Kumar S/o Mukesh Kumar, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station. Withal, following conditions are also imposed upon the applicant:-

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

(ii) that the applicant 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 applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the 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