##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14888]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3019/2026

Sandeep Soni S/o Ratanlal Soni, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Ward No 25, Sindhi Mohalla Hanumangarh Town Presently Street No. 14, New Residential Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh. (Raj). (At Present Lodged At Central Jail

Hanumangarh)

----Petitioner Versus

State Of Rajathan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur Mr. Prakash Kumar

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

01/04/2026

1. Present bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in connection with FIR No. 111/2026 registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh, alleging offences under Section 308 (2), 351 (2), 79, 126 (2) B.N.S. 2023. 2. The allegations levelled against the accused-applicant in the FIR are that he used to contact the complainant’s wife and threatened the complainant with the release of an audio recording allegedly containing inappropriate conversations between himself and the complainant’s wife. It is further alleged that, in order to safeguard his reputation in society, the complainant paid a certain sum of money to applicant; however, the applicant allegedly continued to pressurize him with a view to extort further amounts. It is also alleged that, on one occasion, accused intercepted the

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:41:58 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 09:30:17 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14888] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-3019/2026] complainant’s wife along with a minor girl on a public way and

used abusive language against them.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the complainant’s wife is an old acquaintance of the applicant and that they remained in continuous contact through chats. It is contended that the nature of their communication has been misconstrued. So far as the allegation of extortion is concerned, learned counsel submits that, in fact, the amount in question was advanced by the applicant as a loan to the complainant, and the chats relied upon by the prosecution pertain to the demand for repayment of the said loan amount, and not to any act of

extortion.

3.1 Learned counsel further draws attention to the remand papers dated 24.02.2026, wherein it has been specifically recorded that the investigation qua the applicant stands

completed and that he has been remanded to judicial custody.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that applicant has criminal antecedents and inasmuch as five different criminal cases have

been registered against the petitioner.

4.1 He further submitted that applicant has been continuously threatening the complainant’s wife and extorting money from the complainant and his wife, and that the same is evident from the chat messages exchanged between the applicant and the

complainant’s wife.

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that, insofar as the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are concerned, in three earlier cases the proceedings have either been quashed by the

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:41:58 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 09:30:17 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14888] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-3019/2026] High Court or the petitioner has been acquitted. It is further submitted that only two criminal cases are presently pending

against the petitioner.

Learned counsel contends that, in the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are primarily of threatening and attempting to extort money from the complainant, and that the investigation in this regard has already been completed. It is thus submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, and continued incarceration of the petitioner would

serve no useful purpose.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7. This Court finds that the contents of the FIR prima facie indicate