Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21557 (RAJ)

LALIT SHUKLA S/O SHRI BRIJESH SHUKLA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/7036/2024 · 2025-03-11

Praveer Bhatnagar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:11293] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7036/2024 Lalit Shukla S/o Shri Brijesh Shukla, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Flat No. 5, Plot No. 56A, Upper Maidan Floor, Guru Har Krishan Nagar, Block -B, Matiala, West Delhi. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navdeep Singh Ms. Karishma Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 11/03/2025 1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 278/2023 registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, District Ajmer for the offence(s) under Section 420 and 406 of IPC, the petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the present case. He further submits that the custodial investigation of the accused petitioner is not required and he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. He prays that the anticipatory bail application of the accused- petitioner may be allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:11293] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-7036/2024] 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted the factual report, same is taken on record. 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. Factual report shows that petitioner has not appeared before the investigating officer and is absconding. It is alleged against the petitioner that for delivering goods petitioner obtained Rs. 6,00,000/-(six Lakhs) from the complainant and goods were never transported through his vehicle, therefore considering the above facts, this court is not inclined to enlarge the accused- petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, instant anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /208