Mohammad Afroj vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:52173)
2025 Latest Caselaw 16658 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 16658 Raj
Judgement Date : 3 December, 2025

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mohammad Afroj vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:52173) on 3 December, 2025

Author: Sudesh Bansal

Bench: Sudesh Bansal

[2025:RJ-JD:52173]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8430/2025

Mohammad Afroj S/o Lt. Kamruddin, Aged About 43 Years,
Resident Of 56, Chitodo Ka Tiba, Jatavadi, Hathipole, Tehsil
Girva, District Udaipur (Raj.).
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Jagatveer Singh Deora
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

03/12/2025

1. Instant anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS

has been filed by petitioner, apprehending his arrest in FIR

No.217/2024 registered at Police Station Nai, District Udaipur for

offecnes under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC.

2. Heard counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public

Prosecutor and perused the case diary.

3. Having heard and from perusal of the record, it is apparent

that petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the

basis of being a witness to a supardaginama. Indisputably, the

sale transaction with the complainant was made by one Akhilesh

and sale consideration of Rs.6,30,000/- was paid/transferred by

the complainant to Akhilesh; supardaginama was executed by one

Poona S/o Dhula; another co-accused Babulal, who was also one

of the witness to this supardaginama, has already been granted

benefit of anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court vide order dated

(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 11:03:53 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52173] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8430/2025]

07.07.2025; prima facice no need appears for any custodial

investigation of petitioner since no recovery from petitioner is to

be effected; there are no criminal antecedents of petitioner,

however, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the

case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant the benefit of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 482 BNSS, 2023.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sushila Aggarwal V.

State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1] on discussing powers

and scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C. extensively and while reiterating

principles expounded in the case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia

Vs. State of Punjab [(1980) 2SCC 565] in para 92 prescribed

the criteria required to be kept in mind by the Court while dealing

with application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It would be apposite to

reproduce paras 92.1, 92.4 and 92.7 thus:

"92.1 Consistent with the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab: 1980 (2) SCC 565, whena person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations)relatable to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why th e applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.

92.4 Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court. 92.7 An order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or

(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 11:03:53 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52173] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8430/2025]

investigating agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail."

(emphasis supplied)

5. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and it

is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Mohammad

Afroj S/o Lt. Kamruddin in connection with aforesaid FIR, He

shall be released on bail, on furnishing 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 S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned

Police Station on the following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not 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, and