Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/14044/2025 of MAHENDRA PAL Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 10 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14044/2025 CNR: RJHC011074602025 | URN: CRLMB / 29247U / 2025 Mahendra Pal S/o Mukut Bihari, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Bhindar. Currently Residing At Mukamdagla Ka Khera, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14044/2025
CNR: RJHC011074602025 | URN: CRLMB / 29247U / 2025
Mahendra Pal S/o Mukut Bihari, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Bhindar. Currently Residing At Mukamdagla Ka Khera, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Zeeshan Ali
Mr. Aslam Khan
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
10/08/2026
1. This bail application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case
1. FIR Number 151/2025
2. Date of lodging FIR 02.10.2025
3. Concerned Police Station Bhinder
4. District Udaipur
5. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 62 of BNS, 2023
6. Offences added, if any -
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. As a matter of fact, an agreement to sell was executed by the present petitioner with the
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-14044/2025] complainant. Since the terms and conditions were not fulfilled, petitioner intended to cancel the agreement and therefore, notice was served upon the complainant, yet he did not abide by the terms and conditions. In view of the same, the petitioner executed the sale deed with some third party. He submits that no offence is made out and as a matter of fact, dispute is purely of civil nature, however, just to arm twist the present petitioner, the present FIR has been lodged and thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. It is thus, prayed that the petitioner may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of benefit of anticipatory bail and submits that investigation has been concluded and challan is to be filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of this case so also the fact that the petitioner executed the sale deed after serving notice upon the complainant, in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner- Mahendra Pal S/o Mukut Bihari in connection with the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each along with two sureties of
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-14044/2025] Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. 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
(iii) . that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (SUNIL BENIWAL),J 9/Amar Purohit