[2025:RJ-JP:27221] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 9133/2025 Shrivats Rathi S/o Mr. Arun Kumar Rathi, Aged About 40 Years, R/o C-235, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi And Office Address At 24-A, Sadana Enclave, New Delhi-110017. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umang Gupta Mr. Rachit Somani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 22/07/2025 1. This second pre-arrest bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of his arrest in connection with FIR No.732/2022 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC. 2. Vide order dated 20.09.2023, the first pre-arrest bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn as by order dated 13.01.2023, the misc. petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the aforesaid FIR was disposed of with direction to the Investigating Officer that in case a cognizable offence is made out, he shall issue a notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 09.03.2024, a notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C has been issued by the [2025:RJ-JP:27221] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9133/2025] Investigating Officer which was duly replied by the petitioner but now, Investigating Officer wants to arrest the petitioner. Thus, this second pre-arrest bail application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the entire case of the complainant is based on documents and there was commercial relationship between the parties. Thus, custodial interrogation of petitioner is not required in this matter. Counsel further submits that in the case of Pradip N. Sharma Versus. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 457, while granting benefit of pre-arrest bail, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the accused can be secured without pre-trial detention. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that provisions of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the present case as offence under Section 467 of IPC is punishable with life imprisonment. Despite this under the directions of this court, notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner and he did not come forward for interrogation. It is submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner that despite receiving huge money from the complainant, he did not supply the required goods to the complainant and in order to cheat the complainant, he prepared forged bills and bilty of transport. [2025:RJ-JP:27221] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9133/2025] Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to unearth the truth. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar, and according to the investigation, fake documents were prepared by the petitioner in order to cheat the complainant and despite receiving huge amount, goods were not supplied by the petitioner to the complainant, I am not inclined to extend the indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, this second pre-arrest bail application is dismissed. 6. The observation 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 /35