[2026:RJ-JP:3175]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4034/2025 Sudheer Bhardwaj S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o A 9/24 Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Goswami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

23/01/2026

1. The instant pre-arrest bail application has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS., on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of his arrest in connection with FIR No.159/2020 registered at Police Station Behror, District Bhiwadi for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that principal accused of this case is Naseem Quresh, who has already been granted benefit of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2025. It is submitted that as per the facts and circumstances of the present case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required as nothing is required to be interrogated or recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Union Territory Chandigarh, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9949/2023, dated 01.03.2024. On the strength of this judgment, counsel submits that mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient. The State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie why the custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.

3. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the submission advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is the main mastermind of the case because he himself created the fake FDR in this matter and got it verified from the bank in a fraudulent manner. This fake FDR was used as a guarantee to obtain the contract. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly necessary to determine how he created the fake FDR and how he got it verified from the bank. Custody of the petitioner is also essential to investigate the role of bank employees and to recover the seal used in making the fake FDR. He further submits that despite the interim order, the petitioner did not join the investigation and kept seeking time for arguments, as a result of which this court withdrew the interim order. As far as the regular bail of the co-accused is concerned, it was granted under Section 483 BNSS, and his investigation had already been completed. The co-accused had also filed an FIR against the petitioner alleging that despite taking the full amount, he gave a fake FDR, although the police gave a negative FR in that FIR on the basis of it being filed in self-defence. He further submits that the petitioner committed the crime in an extremely cunning manner, and to investigate all aspects of it, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential.

4. I have considered the rival submissions made at bar.

5. After considering the submission advanced by both the sides and considering the material available on record in form of case diary, this court of the view that in the light of submissions advanced by the State counsel and the fact that despite opportunity provided to the petitioner, he did not join the investigation and further considering the role of the petitioner and gravity of the offence and in view of the gravity of this case, it is the opinion of this Court that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and thus, this pre arrest bail application under section 482 of BNSS is liable to be rejected. As far as the observations recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are con