Case Law
Subject : Criminal Law - Bail Matters
JODHPUR
, RAJASTHAN
– The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur on May 13, 2025, granted bail to
The petitioner,
The prosecution's case is that
Petitioner's Submissions: Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi, counsel for the petitioner, argued for bail on two main grounds. First, he contended that the offenses leveled against his client, despite the gravity of the allegations, are all triable by a Court of Magistrate. Second, he highlighted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since February 26, 2025, and with the trial expected to take a considerable amount of time, continued incarceration was not justified.
State's Opposition: The Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, strongly opposed the bail application. He reiterated the details of the alleged conspiracy, emphasizing the use of forged documents and the significant financial loss inflicted upon the complainant. The prosecution argued that the planned nature of the crime warranted denial of bail.
After hearing arguments from both sides and perusing the case materials, including a factual report dated May 4, 2025, the Court delivered its decision.
Justice Shrimali , in the operative part of the order, stated:
"Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are triable by court of Magistrate, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail."
The court's decision hinged on the legal principle that the forum of trial is a crucial factor in considering bail. While not commenting on the merits of the case, the fact that the charges would be heard by a Magistrate's court, combined with the period of custody already served, weighed in favor of granting bail.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS (equivalent to Section 439 of the old Cr.P.C.).
#Bail #RajasthanHighCourt #BNSS
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.