Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxinarayan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26764) on 3 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:26764]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5908/2025
Laxminarayan son of Gopi Kishan, aged about 42 years, resident
of Ward No. 17 opposite to Shiv Shakti Kalyan Temple Govind
Singh Nagar Hanumangarh Junction Tehsil and District
Hanumangarh Rajasthan present lodged in Distt. Jail
Hanumangarh
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5909/2025
Mahendra Yadav son of Puttulal, aged about 66 years, resident
of Ward No. 15 Bhatta Colony Tehsil and District Hanumangarh
Rajasthan Present lodged in Dist Jail Hanumangarh
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Motsara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH (VACATION JUDGE)
Order
03/06/2025
1. The petitioners have been filed the present bail applications
being aggrieved against the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the
learned Session Judge Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.286/2025) titled (Laxminarayan v. State of
Rajasthan) and order dated 12.05.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.285/2025) titled (Mahendra Yadav v. State of
[2025:RJ-JD:26764] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5908/2025]
Rajasthan), whereby the bail application filed by the petitioners
under Section 483 B.N.S.S. were rejected. The petitioners are
behind the bars, in pursuant to the F.I.R. No.227/2025 of Police
Station Hanumangrah Town, District Hanumangrah lodged against
the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 308(2),
308(6), 308(7), 61(2)(A) of B.N.S.S.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the only
allegation leveled against the petitioners pertains to threatening and
attempting to extort a sum of ₹11,000/-, and that no actual
transaction took place. It is therefore submitted that, in light of the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (Issac Isanga
Musumba & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.), reported in (2014)
15 SCC 357, no offence of extortion is made out unless and until an
actual transaction of money takes place. It is further asserted that
the petitioners are RTI activists and have been falsely implicated due
to the fact that they had lodged complaints against a school run by
the complainant. It is also submitted that the Education Department,
upon inquiry, found irregularities in the functioning of the said
institution.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, prays that
the petitioners be enlarged on bail. Insofar as petitioner
Laxminarayan is concerned, learned counsel submits that with regard
to the one criminal antecedent mentioned in the impugned order, the
petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order
dated 19.05.2025, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 5966/2025 titled (Laxminarayan v. State of Rajasthan).
[2025:RJ-JD:26764] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5908/2025]
5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioners,
under the guise of being RTI activists, have been extorting money
from various institutions, and therefore, should not be enlarged on
bail. However, the learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to
refute the fact that, with respect to the criminal antecedent of
petitioner Laxminarayan, he has already been enlarged on bail by
this Court. Furthermore, the learned Public Prosecutor is also unable
to controvert the submission that no actual transaction took place so
as to attract the offence of extortion.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by both sides,
perused the record of the case, and taken into account the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to (supra), this Court
is of the view that, since no actual transaction (give and take) of
the amount in question has taken place, the offence of extortion
is, prima facie, not made out.
7. This Court, prima facie finds that no offence as alleged
against the petitioners is made out, at this stage. Thus, without
expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court
is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
8. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483
B.N.S.S. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners;
(1) Laxminarayan son of Gopi Kishan & (2) Mahendra
Yadav son of Puttulal arrested in connection with F.I.R.
No.227/2025, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other
case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and
two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned
trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every
[2025:RJ-JD:26764] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5908/2025]
date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion
of the trial.
9. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(SANDEEP SHAH (VACATION JUDGE)),J
15-16-devrajP/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
