[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amzad Sekh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:2660) on 16 January, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:2660]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 157/2026
Amzad Sekh S/o Ayan Sekh, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of
Gulali Nagari, Sanganeri Gate, Bhilwara, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
2. Ghanshyam Sukhwal S/o Govardhan Lal Pandiya,
Resident Ofbhawani Nagar, Near Shyam Vihar, District
Bhilwara, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Padam Singh Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Ram Prajapati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
16/01/2026
1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under
Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Misc.
Petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and the
FIR No.274/2025 dated 30.12.2025 P.S. Bhimganj,
District Bhilwara for the offence U/S 299 and 308(2) of
BNS, 2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside quo the
petitioner and the criminal proceeding intiate against the
petitioner may kindly be dropped. ..."
2. This Court vide order dated 12.01.2026 directed the learned
Public Prosecutor to procure the factual report and the case diary.
In compliance of the order dated 12.01.2026, learned Public
Prosecutor has placed on record the factual report dated
15.01.2026.
3. From the perusal of the factual report, this Court finds that
the police after making investigation in the matter, has not found
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 01:27:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2660] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-157/2026]
the offences under Section 299 BNS to be prima facie proved
against the present petitioner. However, offence under Section
308(2) of BNS have been found to be prima facie proved.
4. It is observed that the offence under Section 308(2) pertains
to whoever commits extortion shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, or with fine, or with both.
5. This Court, upon a perusal of the case file and the impugned
FIR, 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 35 BNSS (Sections 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
Agency, instead of affecting the arrest of the petitioner at once, a
prior notice of 20 days shall be given to him so that he may
exercise his rights. Needless to say that the petitioner is not
precluded from ventilating his grievances before this Court or trial
Court, if occasion so arises, at an appropriate stage.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the misc. petition filed under
Section 528 BNSS as well as stay application are disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
2-divya/-
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 01:27:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
