[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sandeep Soni vs State Of Rajathan (2026:Rj-Jd:14888) on 1 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:14888]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3019/2026

Sandeep Soni S/o Ratanlal Soni, Aged About 43 Years, Resident
Of Ward No 25, Sindhi Mohalla Hanumangarh Town Presently
Street No. 14, New Residential Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And
District Hanumangarh. (Raj). (At Present Lodged At Central Jail
Hanumangarh)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajathan, Through Public Prosecutor
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Lokesh Mathur
                                Mr. Prakash Kumar
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

01/04/2026

1. Present bail application has been filed under Section 483

BNSS, 2023 in connection with FIR No. 111/2026 registered at

Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh, alleging

offences under Section 308 (2), 351 (2), 79, 126 (2) B.N.S. 2023.

2. The allegations levelled against the accused-applicant in the

FIR are that he used to contact the complainant's wife and

threatened the complainant with the release of an audio recording

allegedly containing inappropriate conversations between himself

and the complainant's wife. It is further alleged that, in order to

safeguard his reputation in society, the complainant paid a certain

sum of money to applicant; however, the applicant allegedly

continued to pressurize him with a view to extort further amounts.

It is also alleged that, on one occasion, accused intercepted the

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:41:58 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14888] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-3019/2026]

complainant's wife along with a minor girl on a public way and

used abusive language against them.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the

complainant's wife is an old acquaintance of the applicant and that

they remained in continuous contact through chats. It is

contended that the nature of their communication has been

misconstrued. So far as the allegation of extortion is concerned,

learned counsel submits that, in fact, the amount in question was

advanced by the applicant as a loan to the complainant, and the

chats relied upon by the prosecution pertain to the demand for

repayment of the said loan amount, and not to any act of

extortion.

3.1 Learned counsel further draws attention to the remand

papers dated 24.02.2026, wherein it has been specifically

recorded that the investigation qua the applicant stands

completed and that he has been remanded to judicial custody.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed

the bail application and submitted that applicant has criminal

antecedents and inasmuch as five different criminal cases have

been registered against the petitioner.

4.1 He further submitted that applicant has been continuously

threatening the complainant's wife and extorting money from the

complainant and his wife, and that the same is evident from the

chat messages exchanged between the applicant and the

complainant's wife.

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that, insofar as the

criminal antecedents of the petitioner are concerned, in three

earlier cases the proceedings have either been quashed by the

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:41:58 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14888] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-3019/2026]

High Court or the petitioner has been acquitted. It is further

submitted that only two criminal cases are presently pending

against the petitioner.

Learned counsel contends that, in the present case, the

allegations against the petitioner are primarily of threatening and

attempting to extort money from the complainant, and that the

investigation in this regard has already been completed. It is thus

submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time to

conclude, and continued incarceration of the petitioner would

serve no useful purpose.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7. This Court finds that the contents of the FIR prima facie

indicate that applicant and complainant's wife are old

acquaintances. The consistent exchange of chat messages

between them also lends support to the existence of prior

familiarity and ongoing communication.

7.1 Further, allegations against applicant are essentially of

threatening and demanding money from the complainant and his

wife. In this regard, learned counsel for applicant has contended

that the said demand has been misconstrued, and in fact pertains

to the repayment of loan amount allegedly advanced by the

applicant. The true nature and intent behind such

communications, however, would be a matter of evidence to be

examined during the course of trial.

8. So far as the contention regarding criminal antecedents is

concerned, this Court is of the view that mere pendency of

criminal cases against the petitioner cannot, by itself, be a

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:41:58 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14888] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-3019/2026]

decisive factor for refusal of bail. The same was reiterated by

Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tiwari v State of U.P;

Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2020 (arising out of Special Leave

Petition (Crl.) No.9207/2019) The relevant paragraph is

reproduced herein below:

"7. On considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, in our opinion, there has been no wrong or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court in granting bail to the accused. The factors outlined in the case of Mahipal (supra) for testing the legality of an order granting bail are absent in the order impugned. The materials available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the order impugned suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima-facie view of the evidence on record. The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its discretion in granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon considering relevant materials. No ex-facie error in the order has been shown by the appellant which would establish exercise of such discretion to be improper. We accordingly sustain the order of the High Court granting bail. This appeal is dismissed."

9. Therefore, this Court while taking into consideration above-

mentioned observations and the fact that offences alleged are

triable by Magistrate and that conclusion of the trial is going to

take a considerable time, coupled with the fact that accused-

applicant is in custody since 18.02.2026 and no useful purpose

would be served by his continued incarceration, is of the opinion

that instant bail application deserves to be allowed.

10. This Court without expressing any opinion on the

merits/demerits of the case, deems it appropriate to enlarge

accused-applicant on bail. Needless to say, the above observations

are limited to the justifiable disposal of the present bail application

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:41:58 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14888] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-3019/2026]

and shall not come in the way of the trial Court to take

independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral

evidence, while finally deciding the case.

11. Consequently, bail application filed under Section 483 of

BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that accused-petitioner Sandeep

Soni S/o Ratanlal Soni shall be released on bail, provided he

furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees : Fifty

Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees :

Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of learned

Trial Court, with the condition to appear before that Court on all

dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.