Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anil Bhargav vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:44034) on 8 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:43845]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9461/2025
Anil Bhargav S/o Amarchand @ Agarchand, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Bhargav Mohala, Nakash Gate, Nagaur Police Station
Kotwali, Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged
In District Jail, Nagaur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Adv.
assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana
Mr. Manvendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
Mr. Rakesh Dhaka
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
JUDGMENT
RESERVED ON:- 06/10/2025
PRONOUNCED ON:- 08/10/2025
1. The present bail application under Section 483, Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as BNSS
for short) by the applicant- Anil Bhargav is against the bail
rejection order dated 02.08.2025 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge No.1 Nagaur in Criminal Bail Application No.
306/2025 in connection with FIR No. 223/2025 registered at Police
Station Kotwali Nagaur, District Nagaur for the offences under
Sections 189(2), 140(3), 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 304(2) of The
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as BNS).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr.
Adv. with Ms. Priyanka Borana and Mr. Manvendra Singh submits
that FIR as registered at the behest of the complainant-Shyam
Sundar for the alleged offences is a false case and no such offence
was committed by him. He is behind the bars from 18.07.2025
(Uploaded on 08/10/2025 at 02:42:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43845] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9461/2025]
and further there are serious material contradictions in the
statement of the complainant-Shyam Sundar, who is not an eye-
witness, recorded under Section 180 BNSS. He further submits
that witness Rajiv also failed to make any specific statement
against him despite being eye-witness and whatever he states is a
hearsay evidence. He further submits that no amount as alleged
by the complainant amounting Rs. 1,60,000/- was recovered
which declares that the complete case as false and he has been
falsely implicated.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the present
applicant along with other persons kidnapped the victim- Pappu
Ram and took away the money from him and caused grievous
injuries to him. He further submits that police has filed the
charge-sheet which shows that applicant has committed the
offences which stands proved from the statement of victim as well
as other material witnesses.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court considered
the FIR in which the complainant did not name the present
applicant-Anil Bhargav. Further even in the statements under
Section 180 BNS as recorded on 18.07.2025 he did not name the
present applicant Anil Bhargav. The alleged eye-witness Rajiv S/o
Hanuman Ram named the present applicant-Anil Bhargav on the
basis of the hearsay evidence which is not corroborated from the
statement of other material witnesses. This Court considered the
entire charge-sheet and failed to find recovery of the alleged Rs.
1,60,000/- extorted by the present applicant-Anil Bhargav from
the victim. This Court also considered the injury report of the
complainant dated 18.07.2025 in which all the injuries are bruce
(Uploaded on 08/10/2025 at 02:42:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43845] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9461/2025]
and simple in nature except one injury which is on the teeth.
Injury No.2, as per the medical report, shows that the upper fore-
teeth stated to have been loosed due to the beatings. This injury
is not grievous and dangerous to life, further the victim did not
name the applicant not only in the FIR but also in his statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Even the alleged eye-witness Rajiv
named the present applicant on hearsay evidence which is not
corroborated from the statement of other witnesses. Having
considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the
charge-sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer, this Court
is prima facie of the view that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
5. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483
BNSS, is allowed and it is directed that applicant-Anil Bhargav
S/o Amarchand @ Agarchand shall be released on bail in
connection with FIR No.223/2025 of Police Station Kotwali
Nagaur, District Nagaur, provided he executes a personal bond
in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of
Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his
appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing
and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.
The applicant is further directed not to take undue advantage of
liberty or misuse liberty. It is made clear that the observation as
made by this Court in the bail application will not affect the trial of
the case.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J
57-Jatin/-
(Uploaded on 08/10/2025 at 02:42:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
