##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:12708]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 161/2025

Shankar Khandelwal S/o Shri Mohan Lal Khandelwal, R/o Shri Govind Kripa Build Mart Pvt. Ltd. Rana Pratap Nagar, Kalwar

Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Complainant-Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Satya Narain Gupta S/o Late Shri Radhe Shyam Gupta, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 01-E-19, Shiv Shakti Colony, Shastri Nagar Jaipur, Presently Residing At Plot No. 364, James Colony, Sector No. 3, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. (At

Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jaipur).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. Amar Kumar

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sawdeep Singh Hora

Mr. Rajesh Mehrishi Mr. Naresh Kumar Sejvani

Mr. Kunal Sharma Mr. Rajesh Choudhary-GA-cum-AAG

with Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.G.A.

Ms. Neha Goyal Mr. Alok Kumar, ACP, Jhotwara

Mr. Suresh Singh, C.I. P.S. Kalwar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

25/03/2026

1. This criminal bail cancellation application under Section 483(3) of BNSS has been filed against the order dated 24.10.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as “The learned Court below) on behalf of the applicant-complainant in

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 11:55:45 AM)

(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 11:46:59 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:12708] (2 of 5) [CRLBC-161/2025] connection with FIR No.166/2025 registered at Police Station Kalwar Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 318(4), 338,

336(3), 340(2), 329(3), 62 and 61(2) of BNS, 2023.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant–complainant submits that the learned Court below has erred in granting anticipatory bail to the accused–respondent No.2 and also failed to properly appreciate the material facts on record. He further submits that as many as 94 criminal cases have been registered against the accused–respondent No. 2, out of which, 8 cases are pending trial and 21 cases are under investigation, which clearly demonstrates his criminal antecedents and habitual involvement in similar offences. He further submits that in the present matter, the investigation is still going-on, and the police has yet to recover the forged “pattas” allegedly issued by the accused–respondent No. 2, therefore, grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may adversely affect the ongoing investigation. He further submits that the criminal cases have been registered against the accused– respondent No. 2 in almost every police station of Jaipur City, and he has been declared a history-sheeter. Lastly, prayed that the anticipatory bail granted to the accused–respondent No. 2 by the

learned Court below vide order dated 24.10.2025 be cancelled.

3. Learned counsel for the accused–respondent No. 2 submits that the learned Court below has rightly granted anticipatory bail, and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. He further submits that a bare reading of the FIR does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the accused–respondent No. 2. He further submits that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature, arising out of contractual

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 11:55:45 AM)

(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 11:46:59 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:12708] (3 of 5) [CRLBC-161/2025] agreement. He further submits that the learned Court below has duly considered all the relevant facts and circumstances while granting anticipatory bail, and no illegality or perversity can be attributed to the said order. Lastly, prayed that the present

application for cancellation of bail be dismissed.

4. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General submits that the anticipatory bail has wrongly been

granted by the learned Court below.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rakesh Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary and Anr.