CHANDIRAM @ CHANDU PUJARA S/O LATE SHRI MEGHRAJ PUJARA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/6827/2025 · 2025-10-10
Sameer Jain
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41339 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41339 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:41253] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6827/2025
1. Chandiram @ Chandu Pujara S/o Late Shri Meghraj Pujara, Aged About 75 Years,
2. Govindram Pujara S/o Late Shri Meghram Pujara, Aged About 71 Years,
3. Suresh Pujara S/o Late Shri Meghraj Pujara, Aged About 67 Years, All R/o Megh Sons, M.I. Road, Jaipur, District Jaipur. ----Applicants Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AGA & Mr. Anirudh Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment 10/10/2025
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 482 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 218/2004 registered at Police Station Jalupura District Jaipur for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC.
2.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted the instant dispute is of civil nature, as an agreement was executed in the year 1995 and the termination deed was executed in the year
1999. It is submitted that FIR was lodged in the year 2004 wherein protest petition was filed in the year 2007. It is further submitted that in the year 2025, after investigation, alleged offence was made out. However, an interim protection was granted on 13.06.2025.
[2025:RJ-JP:41253] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-6827/2025]
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.
4. Having heard the contentions put-forth, upon a perusal of the material available on record, and considering the fact that prima facie the alleged dispute pertains to civil jurisprudence; that FIR was initially lodged and outcome is on account of protest proceedings, however, without commenting upon merits and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the present application.
5. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Jalupura District Jaipur in FIR No. 218/2004 is directed that in the event of arrest of the accused-applicants Chandiram @ Chandu Pujara S/o Late Shri Meghraj Pujara, Govindram Pujara S/o Late Shri Meghram Pujara & Suresh Pujara S/o Late Shri Meghraj Pujara shall be released on bail, provided they furnish 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicants 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 applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
(SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/141