CRLMB/10586/2026 of ROHIT SHARMA S/O RAMDUTT SHARMA Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 31 August 2026

Order

31/08/2026

1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.66/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali Bundi District Bundi for offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338 and 305(a) of BNS, 2023.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It was argued that the matter is purely civil in nature, which has been given a criminal colour. He further submitted that the matter is exclusively triable by the Magistrate. It was also contended that

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-10586/2026] the petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 09.06.2026 and has four previous criminal antecedents, out of which three cases have already been disposed of. The charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in continued custody and, accordingly, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the complainant is a 73-year-old widow who was suffering from illness and had reposed confidence in the petitioner and his family. Taking advantage of the trust reposed in him and her physical condition, the petitioner moved in a calculative manner, took advantage of her physical and mental vulnerability and obtained access to her bank pass-book, banking particulars and valuable ornaments and thereafter caused substantial withdrawals from her bank account to the tune of approximately Rs.18.50 lakhs and also removed jewellery worth approximately Rs.11 lakhs, thereby involving a total amount of approximately Rs.29.50 lakhs. It was further argued that, in the Indian context, where mutual trust and confidence have been reposed in a person, such an alleged misuse of the same, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case, does not warrant grant of bail at this stage. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5. At the outset, this Court finds that the allegations cannot, at this stage be characterized as a simple dispute concerning

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-10586/2026] repayment of money. The circumstance that the complainant is an elderly widow aged about 73 years who allegedly reposed confidence in the petitioner during period of her illness is also not an insignificant circumstance. If the prosecution allegations are taken at their face value, the alleged acts represent an abuse of a position of trust against a particularly vulnerable victim. The court cannot lose sight of the possibility that release of the petitioner may expose the complainant to pressure, persuasion or influence particularly when parties are known to each other.

6. Hence, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the alleged exploitation of the confidence of an aged and infirm complainant, the substantial amount involved, the possibility of influencing the complainant and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, no case for grant of bail is made out.

7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner.

8. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg/148