Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Karthikeyan Gopal S/O Shri Gopal vs The State Of Rajasthan … on 28 May, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2025:RJ-JP:22373]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6268/2025
Karthikeyan Gopal S/o Shri Gopal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Flat
No. 103, B-1 Block, Woods Ville, Phase-1, Boradevasi Moshi,
Pimpri, Chinchwad Police Station Bhosari, District Pune
(Maharashtra), Presently Plot No. 227, Silver Of Bunglows,
Phase-1, Cherlapally, Police Station Cherlapally District
Hyderabad (Telanagana). (Accused In Judicial Custody Since
20.11.2024 At Central Jail Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through The PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
28/05/2025
1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in
connection with FIR No.09/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar
Jaipur, District Jaipur West (Raj.) for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 & 120B of IPC.
2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was
dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 07.01.2025
while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer of bail
after submission of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has
been filed in this matter, thus this second bail application has been
preferred.
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:03:02 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22373] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6268/2025]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that alleged
offences are triable by Magistrate for which maximum punishment
is seven years. He submits that initially FIR was registered against
the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
406, 467, 468 & 120B of IPC however, after completion of
investigation, offences punishable under Sections 467 & 468 of
IPC were not found proved against the petitioner and charge-
sheet was filed in this matter for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 406 & 120B of IPC. It appears from bare perusal of
the FIR that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner.
Counsel submits that it is evident from the charge-sheet that
petitioner has not received any money from the complainant and
entire allegation of receiving money is against co-accused
Hariprasad Saini. It is contended that there are no criminal
antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable
time in its conclusion. Counsel further contends that petitioner is
in custody since 19.11.2024 and further custody of the petitioner
would not serve any fruitful purpose.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by
counsel for the petitioner.
5. Despite name of learned counsel for the complainant
reflecting in the cause list, no one has put in appearance on behalf
of the complainant to oppose the prayer for bail.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:03:02 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22373] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6268/2025]
parties, as also the fact that alleged offences are triable by
Magistrate and there is no allegation against the petitioner of
receiving money from the complainant, there are no criminal
antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable
time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but
without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case,
I deem it proper to allow the second bail application.
8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is
directed that accused-petitioner – Karthikeyan Gopal S/o Shri
Gopal, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that
Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all
subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do
so.
9. The observations made hereinabove is only for decision of
the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the
trial of the case in any manner.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
GAUTAM JAIN /84
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 01:03:02 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)