[2025:RJ-JP:1961] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.550/2025 Mohammad Mohsin S/o Mohammad Iqbal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o House No. 1-L-1, Vigyan Nagar, Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Ms. Manju Dave, PP Mr. Samarth Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 15/01/2025 1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.318/2024, registered at Police Station Borkheda, District Kota for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 384, 365, 504 and 120-B of IPC, the accused-petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. bail application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that the FIR itself delayed by four and half months. The complainant Farukh Khan lodged the FIR against the present petitioner and the other co-accused, narrating the story of 17.05.2024 that the accused-petitioner alongwith the other co- accused kidnapped the complainant and thereafter, forcefully executed the registry in favour of Amit Jain. It is also argued that on 28.06.2024 the same complainant lodged an FIR on [2025:RJ-JP:1961] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-550/2025] 30.06.2024, in that FIR, the complainant has not mentioned the incident of 17.05.2024 that the complainant was forcefully taken by the accused-petitioner and the other co-accused Aslam and Danish, forcefully executing the sale deed in favour of Amit Jain. It is also contended that the bail application of the other co-accused Aslam Sher Khan was allowed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., the accused-petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner. It is contended that the complainant has named the accused-petitioner in the FIR and specifically alleged that the accused-petitioner along with the other co-accused kidnapped the complainant and thereafter, forcefully took his signature and executed a sale deed in favour of the Amit Jain, therefore, considering the allegations levelled against the accused-petitioner, the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. Considering the fact that the FIR itself is delayed by four and half months. The record shows that the same complainant Farukh Khan son of Mohammad Yakub also lodged an FIR on 30.06.2024, narrating the incident of 28.06.2024, committed by the accused- petitioner and the other co-accused namely Aslam and Danish, in the said FIR, there is no mentioning of the fact as to incident occurred on 17.05.2024, therefore, considering the above facts [2025:RJ-JP:1961] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-550/2025] without further elaborating upon the factual aspects, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner. 6. 6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner- Mohammad Mohsin S/o Mohammad Iqbal, in connection with FIR No.318/2024, registered at Police Station Borkheda, District Kota, 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 (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-36