An order in a quashing petition does not curtail the jurisdiction of a Sessions Court to grant anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, and custodial interrogation solely for the purpose of monetary recovery is impermissible.

Order

Date of conclusion of arguments:- 27.04.2026

Date on which the judgment was Reserved :- 27.04.2026

Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced:- Full Judgment

Date of pronouncement:- 06.05.2026

1. The petitioner, Kushagra Bhushan, has filed an application seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2, Gajan Singh Choudhary, as per the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, Rajasthan, and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metro-II.

2. The petitioner’s counsel argues that FIR No. 241/2025, lodged on 18.07.2025 at Vishwakarma Police Station in Jaipur (West), alleges misappropriation of Rs. 1.5 crores by respondent No. 2. Following the FIR’s registration, respondent No. 2 filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5477/2025 to quash the FIR. The High Court, in its order dated 09.09.2025, noted that if the Investigating Officer deemed custodial interrogation necessary, they would issue a 15-day prior notice, explaining the reasons for arrest.

3. The counsel contends that the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the seriousness of this economic offence, which involves systematic breach of trust and misappropriation of around Rs. 1.5 crore.

4. The counsel also argues that custodial questioning was essential to trace financial transactions, bank dealings, and the diversion of funds, and to recover the misappropriated amount. Despite the Investigating Agency issuing the required notices and recording the grounds for arrest, the Sessions Court overlooked this need and granted anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2.

5. It is further contended that respondent No. 2 secured anticipatory bail by taking advantage of the initial incomplete invocation of Sections 318(3) and 316(2) of BNS, even though the allegations clearly constitute an offence under Section 316(5) of BNS.

6. Moreover, the counsel further asserts that the Sessions Court cannot override the order passed by the High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5477/2025. The counsel argues that the court’s act was contrary to judicial propriety and that granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 violates the High Court’s order, warranting cancellation of the bail.

7. Citing precedents, the counsel refer to the judgment in Man Singh v. Ganga Singh & Anr., RLR 1989 (2) 433, in which the Rajasthan High Court revoked bail after observing that the accused had influenced the investigation and misused their liberty. The counsel further relies on the Supreme Court ruling in Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi & Ors., (2003) (8) SCC 319 which emphasises that fraud on the court and suppression of material facts justify interference with orders under the inherent powers.

8. On the other hand, respondent No. 2’s counsel opposed the cancellation application.

9. The counsel states that the High Court’s order passed in the Criminal Misc. petition did not strip the Sessions Court of its authority under Section 482 of the BNSS.

10. The counsel argues that there was a genuine apprehension of arrest, as the Investigating Officer served a notice on 10.07.2025, alleging recovery of Rs. 1.5 crore, prompting the