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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 10960

[2026:RJ-JD:16737]


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR


S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2130/2026


Prakash Chandra S/o Kodarlal Patel, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Hathaud Post, Karoli Tehsil, Police Station Bichiwada, District Dungarpur, Currently Constable No.326, PS Dowada, District Dungarpur. (Presently Lodged In Jail Udaipur.)

----Petitioner Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP with Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA


09/04/2026

Order

1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, in connection with the FIR No.28/2026 registered at Police Station C.P.S. Jaipur, ACB District, for the offences under Section 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 61(2) & 238 of the BNS, 2023.

2. The crux of the allegations narrated in the FIR is that the petitioner – Prakash, Constable, P.S. Dowada, District Dungarpur, and the co-accused– Ashok Kumar Patidar, Head Constable, P.S. Dowada, District Dungarpur, demanded a bribe for not registering a case against the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant registered the FIR, subsequent to which the petitioner was arrested and the bail application before the learned Trial Court was rejected on 06.02.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and the petitioner did not demand the bribe as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioner is behind bars since 30.01.2026 without any criminal antecedent. He further submits that the charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed and the trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the Petitioner in further custody and consequently prays that Petitioner may kindly be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that looking to the nature of the offence(s) alleged in the FIR, the Petitioner may kindly not be granted the benefit of bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Considering the facts of the case, more particularly that the petitioner is behind bars since 30.01.2026, without any criminal antecedent; the charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter and the trial of the case will take considerable time, thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner.

7. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner - Prakash Chandra S/o Kodarlal Patel, be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, 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 learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing till conclusion of the trial.

8. The petitioner shall also not tamper with any evidence nor would he 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.

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