Kanhaiya Lal Mali vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26253)
2025 Latest Caselaw 10516 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kanhaiya Lal Mali vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26253) on 28 May, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:26253]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4411/2025

Kanhaiya Lal Mali S/o Devi Lal Mali, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident Of Pathwari Mohalla, Mohi, Dist.-Rajsamand.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2.       Shri Shiv Singh Ranawat S/o Unknown, Resident Of Kotak
         Mahindra Bank Ltd. Office- Anand Hotel, Ground Floor.
         Kherwada, Rishabhdev, Udaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Harshit Yadav (through VC)
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

28/05/2025

1. The factual report dated 23.05.2025 received by the learned

Public Prosecutor from the office of SHO, P.S. Kankroli, District

Rajsamand is taken on record.

2. The factual report indicates that the investigation in relation

to the impugned FIR has yet not been completed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material as made available to this Court as well as gone through

the niceties of the matter.

4. Having perused the impugned FIR, this Court prima facie

finds that the offences alleged to have been committed by the

petitioner are either triable by a court of Magistrate and/or do not

contain the maximum punishment of more than seven years, and

keeping in mind the provisions contained in Section 41, 41-A

[2025:RJ-JD:26253] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4411/2025]

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 is found to be absolutely necessary by

the Investigating Agencies, 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 raising his grievance before this

Court or the trial Court at an appropriate stage, if occasion so

arises.

5. With the aforesaid direction, the misc. petition filed under

Section 528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.) as well as stay application are

disposed of.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 104-divya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)