Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Kumar Dagra vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:51388) on 26 November, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:51386]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8749/2025
Vinod Kumar Dagra S/o Chandanram Jat, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident Of Talai Tali Ki Dhani, Chithawari, Chomu, Jaipur, West,
Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Prabhuram Jat S/o Kishanaram, Resident Of Janjila,
Parvatsar, Didwana, Kuchaman
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8744/2025
Vinod Kumar Dagra S/o Chandanram Jat, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident Of Talai Tali Ki Dhani, Chithawari, Chomu, Jaipur,
West, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Learned Public
Prosecutor
2. Andaram S/o Bhanwaruram, Resident Of Janjila,
Parvatsar, Didwana, Kuchaman
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8784/2025
Vinod Kumar Dagra S/o Chandanram Jat, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident Of Talai Tali Ki Dhani, Chithawari, Chomu, Jaipur,
(West) Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Learned Public
Prosecutor
2. Gumanram Lega S/o Laduram, Resident Of Janjila,
Parvatsar, Didwana Kuchaman.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 08:27:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/11/2025 at 09:03:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51386] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8749/2025]
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8762/2025
Vinod Kumar Dagra S/o Chandanram Jat, Aged About 37
Years, Resident Of Talai Tali Ki Dhani, Chithawari, Chomu,
Jaipur, West, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Learned Public
Prosecutor
2. Govind Nath S/o Govardhan Nath, Resident Of Janjila,
Parvatsar, Didwana, Kuchaman
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP.
Mr. Mohammad Akbar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
26/11/2025
These criminal misc. petitions under Section 528 BNSS have
been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIRs No.76/2025,
75/2025, 74/2025 & 73/2025 registered at Police Station
Parvatsar, District Didwana-Kuchaman for the offences under
Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of BNS and so also other
proceedings emanating out of the aforesaid FIRs respectively.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at bar. Perused the
material as made available to this Court and gone through the
niceties of the matter.
Having perused the impugned FIR, this Court prima facie
finds that the offences alleged to have been committed by the
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 08:27:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51386] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8749/2025]
petitioner are either triable by a Court of Magistrate or do not
contain the maximum imprisonment of more than seven years,
and keeping in mind the provisions contained in Section 35 BNSS
(Section 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 is found to be
absolutely necessary by the Investigating Agencies, instead of
affecting the arrest of the petitioner at once, a prior notice of 15
days shall be given to them so that he may exercise his legitimate
rights. Needless to say that the petitioner is not precluded from
raising their grievance before the trial Court.
With the aforesaid direction, these misc. petitions filed under
Section 528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.) as well as stay applications are
disposed of.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
461, 315,317 & 1-suppl.-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 08:27:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
