[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53921) on 15 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:53921]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9552/2025
1. Jagdish S/o Bhera Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Saragaro Ka Baas, Beejli, Jalore Rajasthan. At Present
Residing At 5-81, Main Road, Mandal, Narmetta,
Warangal. Telangana 506167.
2. Bhera Ram S/o Pratapji, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Saragaro Ka Baas, Beejli, Jalore Rajasthan.
3. Rekha Devi W/o Bhera Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Saragaro Ka Baas, Beejli, Jalore Rajasthan.
4. Rinku D/o Bhera Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Saragaro Ka Baas, Beejli, Jalore Rajasthan.
5. Shilpa D/o Bhera Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Saragaro Ka Baas, Beejli, Jalore Rajasthan.
6. Kamlesh S/o Bhera Ram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
Saragaro Ka Baas, Beejli, Jalore Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor.
2. Anita D/o Champalal, Resident Of Gaav Ka Chohta,
Rohicha Khurd, Luni, Jodhpur City West, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR
Order
15/12/2025
1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS
has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR
No.140/2025 lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana (Jodhpur City
West), Jodhpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 85,
316(2) & 115(2) of B.N.S.
(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 02:09:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53921] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-9552/2025]
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material made available to this Court.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report
dated 12.11.2025, as per which during investigation, alleged
offences punishable under Sections 85, 316(2) & 115(2) of B.N.S
have not been found proved against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6. The
alleged offences have been found proved only against the
petitioner No.1. It has further been mentioned in the report that
charge sheet has been proposed only against the petitioner No.1.
4. In view of above, the present misc. petition is dismissed as
having become infructuous qua petitioner Nos.2 to 6.
5. So far as the petitioner No.1 Jagdish is concerned, this
Court, upon a perusal of the case file and the impugned FIR,
prima facie finds that the offences alleged to have been committed
by the petitioner No.1 are either triable by Magistrate and/or do
not contain the maximum punishment of more than seven years
and keeping in mind the provisions contained in Section 35 BNSS
(Sections 41, 41-A Cr.P.C.) as well as the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State
of Bihar, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2756, the dictum of which
squarely applies mutatis mutandis to the present case, it is
directed that in case, the arrest of the petitioner No.1 is found to
be absolutely necessary by the Investigating Agency, instead of
affecting the arrest of the petitioner at once, a prior notice of one
month shall be given to him so that he may exercise his rights.
Needless to say that the petitioner is not precluded from
ventilating his grievances before this Court or trial court, if
occasion so arises, at an appropriate stage.
(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 02:09:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53921] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-9552/2025]
6. However, the petitioner No.1 is directed to appear before the
Investigating Officer on 24.12.2025 at 11:00 A.M. and join
investigation.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the misc. petition filed under
Section 528 BNSS as well as stay application are disposed of.
(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J
88-GKaviya/-
(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 02:09:04 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
