Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Shishir vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27227) on 16 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27227]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8821/2023
Shishir S/o Pramshankar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o New
Mahaveer Nagar Girwa, Police Govardhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. CS Ojha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/06/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS at the
instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter
are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 48/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Saagwada 3. District Dungarpur 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 420, 406, 34 of IPC 5. Offences added, if any Under Section 120-B of IPC 6. Date of passing of 26.05.2023 impugned order 2. Having apprehension of being arrested in the afore-
mentioned matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail
on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out
against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no
(Downloaded on 17/06/2025 at 09:32:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27227] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8821/2023]
factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of
anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made
an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and submitted that the present case is not fit for grant
of anticipatory bail.
5. None present for the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the State and gone through
the order under challenge, the FIR and other material. It is
revealing that the complainant has been duped by Mukesh, the
manager of Eli Global Nidhi Mutual and Micro Finance Navrangpura
Ahamdabad to Saagwada Branch, Dungarpur and cashier Rajnish
Sompura and Rajendra who were working between year 2016-
2021. Some of these invested their money in a hope of getting it
doubled after some time. Prima facie, material is their to show
that the petitioner was not a director of the alleged company in
which the amount was deposited by the investors. There is no
allegation that anything was given to this petitioner directly by the
complainant or any of the witnesses. The offences involved in case
are triable by a Court of Magistrate, for which the provisions
contained under Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC are applicable
mutatis mutandis and the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [AIR
2014 SC 2756] applies squarely in the present case, where
custodial investigation would not be required.
6. An interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on
(Downloaded on 17/06/2025 at 09:32:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27227] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8821/2023]
01.08.2023 restraining his arrest in the present case, whereafter
around two years have lapsed and the petitioner is enjoying the
said protection since then and he has not misused the liberty
during this prolonged period as no report in this regard has been
received by this court. Thus, in light of the judgment rendered by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Kumar Vs.
State of Dehli (Criminal Appeal No.360/2022) reported in
2022/INSC/275, and considering the over all facts and
circumstances of the case, it is deemed suitable to grant the
benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present matter.
Needless to say, none of the observations made herein under shall
affect the rights of either of the parties during trial and this Court
refrains from commenting on the niceties of the matter.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438
Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the
concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest of
the petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which have
been given in tabular form above, he shall be released on bail,
provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned
Police Station on the following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and
when required;
(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the court or any police officer, and(Downloaded on 17/06/2025 at 09:32:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27227] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8821/2023]
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without
previous permission of the court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
179-Chhavi/-
(Downloaded on 17/06/2025 at 09:32:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)