##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:38627]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 88/2026 CNR: RJHC020520212026 | URN: CRLBC / 118U / 2026 Navin Choudhary S/o Vijendra Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Plot No. 21, Girdhar Colony, Sikar Road, Murlipura, Jaipur (West)

Rajasthan.

----Complainant/Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP …….Non-Petitioner

2. Satyanarayan Gupta S/o Late Radheshyam Gupta, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 1-E-19, Shiv Shakti Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, At Present R/o 364, Jems Colony, Sector-3, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Accused/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Jangid via VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, Adv.

Mr. Devanshu Saini, Adv.

Ms. Vaishnavi Pareek, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

Reportable

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing a bail cancellation application under Section 483 (3) BNSS at the instance of complainant-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No. Particulars of the Case

1. FIR Number 404/2025 2. Concerned Police Station Murlipura

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the instant application for cancellation of bail are that, based on a complaint lodged at the instance of the petitioner, an FIR was registered for the offence of cheating, etc., and the investigation was underway. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the accused- respondent moved an application seeking pre-arrest bail. Pursuant to the impugned order dated 24.10.2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail; hence, the present application.

3. It is the stance of the petitioner that the act committed by the accused-respondent in connivance with the other accused persons is not only serious and unlawful but also clearly reflects a premeditated design. The learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case or considered the material available on record. Therefore, the concession of pre-

arrest bail granted in his favour deserves to be set aside.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the accused-respondents have jointly defended the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the niceties of the case.

6. After having gone through the niceties of the matter and having bestowed my thoughtful consideration upon the facts of the case and the determination made by the learned Sessions Judge, I am of the view that due consideration has been accorded by the learned Sessions Judge to the facts narrated in the FIR and the other material available on record. Thus, the legal as well as factual aspects of the matter have been duly considered. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the accused, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the State were not only recorded but duly appreciated. The grounds raised before this Court were also raised before the learned Sessions Judge and were duly and adequately considered.

6.1 Furthermore, the impugned order manifests that the report prepared by the mediator, former Chief Justice Dr. Vinit Kothari, was in favour of the petitioner. The arbitration proceedings also culminated in favour of the petitioner. The JDA and the NCLT have likewise decided the matter in favour of the petitioner, with a specific finding that no cheating was committed.

6.2 The fact that the FIR was lodged after a period of fifteen years from the alleged occurren