Shishir vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27227)
2025 Latest Caselaw 10634 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 10634 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 June, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shishir vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27227) on 16 June, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:27227]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8821/2023

Shishir S/o Pramshankar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o New
Mahaveer Nagar Girwa, Police Govardhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)              :     None present
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. CS Ojha, PP



                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

16/06/2025

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of

filing an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS at the

instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter

are tabulated herein below:

S.No.                           Particulars of the Case

     2.    Concerned Police Station                 Saagwada
     3.    District                                 Dungarpur
     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR             Under Sections 420, 406, 34
                                                   of IPC
     5.    Offences added, if any                  Under Section 120-B of IPC
     6.    Date   of    passing                of 26.05.2023
           impugned order


2.        Having      apprehension       of    being      arrested    in   the   afore-

mentioned matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail

on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out

against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no

[2025:RJ-JD:27227] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8821/2023]

factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of

anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made

an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail

application and submitted that the present case is not fit for grant

of anticipatory bail.

5. None present for the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the State and gone through

the order under challenge, the FIR and other material. It is

revealing that the complainant has been duped by Mukesh, the

manager of Eli Global Nidhi Mutual and Micro Finance Navrangpura

Ahamdabad to Saagwada Branch, Dungarpur and cashier Rajnish

Sompura and Rajendra who were working between year 2016-

2021. Some of these invested their money in a hope of getting it

doubled after some time. Prima facie, material is their to show

that the petitioner was not a director of the alleged company in

which the amount was deposited by the investors. There is no

allegation that anything was given to this petitioner directly by the

complainant or any of the witnesses. The offences involved in case

are triable by a Court of Magistrate, for which the provisions

contained under Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC are applicable

mutatis mutandis and the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [AIR

2014 SC 2756] applies squarely in the present case, where

custodial investigation would not be required.

6. An interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on

[2025:RJ-JD:27227] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8821/2023]

01.08.2023 restraining his arrest in the present case, whereafter

around two years have lapsed and the petitioner is enjoying the

said protection since then and he has not misused the liberty

during this prolonged period as no report in this regard has been

received by this court. Thus, in light of the judgment rendered by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Kumar Vs.

State of Dehli (Criminal Appeal No.360/2022) reported in

2022/INSC/275, and considering the over all facts and

circumstances of the case, it is deemed suitable to grant the

benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

Needless to say, none of the observations made herein under shall

affect the rights of either of the parties during trial and this Court

refrains from commenting on the niceties of the matter.

7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438

Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the

concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest of

the petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which have

been given in tabular form above, he shall be released on bail,

provided he furnishes 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

[2025:RJ-JD:27227] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8821/2023]