Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36673 (RAJ)

MANOJ KUMAR S/O LALCHAND v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/7544/2025 · 2025-10-08

Sameer Jain

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:40764] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7544/2025 1. Manoj Kumar S/o Lalchand, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Mateshwari Niwas, Kabir Ashram Ka Rasta, Rajput Colony, Rangbadi, Kota. 2. Deendayal Nagar S/o Shri Harkchand Nagar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 306 Vinoba Bhave Nagar, Kota. 3. Pushpendra Nagar S/o Shri Shankarlal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 205 A, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Kota. ----Applicants Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP with Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AGA Mr. Pradeep Singh, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/10/2025 1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 482 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 131/2025 registered at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar District Kota City for the offence(s) under Sections 308(2), 308(3), 308(4), 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 336(4) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that a false and fabricated FIR has been registered against the applicants. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and has submitted [2025:RJ-JP:40764] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-7544/2025] that material fact i.e., the petitioner No.1 is a habitual offender and has strong criminal antecedents registered against him has been concealed from the Court. 4. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the complainant and taking note of the fact that transaction in question is in violation of provisions of Income Tax Act and Stamp Act; that there is no substantial evidence qua the transaction entered inter-se the parties; that the fact qua criminal antecedents has been concealed, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant bail application. 5. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /261