Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44467 (RAJ)

SAKSHI GUPTA W/O SHRI SHARAD GUPTA D/O SHRI MADHUSUDAN GUPTA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/11039/2025 · 2025-10-16

Sameer Jain

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:42482] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11039/2025 Sakshi Gupta W/o Shri Sharad Gupta D/o Shri Madhusudan Gupta, R/o Pratap Nagar, Jhalar Bawdi, Rawatbhata, District Chitorgarh, Rajasthan. At Present Resident of House No. 1-Th- 15, Vigyan Nagar, Police Station Vigyan Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota). ----Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal with Ms. Ridhima Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 16/10/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 0092/2025 registered at Police Station Udyog Nagar (Kota City) District Kota for the offence(s) under Sections 318(4), 316(5) & 60(a) of BNS, 2023; wherein charge sheet is filed under Sections 318(4), 316(5) of BNS, 2023 and under Section 66D of IT (Amendment) Act, 2008. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that instant matter is triable by Magistrate and charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter. It is further submitted that trial [2025:RJ-JP:42482] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-11039/2025] will take its own time and there are no criminal antecedents pending against the applicant. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant was employed in the Bank and she has made breach of trust by embezzling and siphoning out approximately Rs.5 crores from various customers; nevertheless, she has transacted the said amount in the accounts of beneficiaries who are her close relative i.e. husband, mother, father and the remaining amount was invested in shares. 4. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, taking note of the fact that in the matter at hand offence of heinous nature is alleged to be committed; and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to allow the bail application of the accused- applicant. 5. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/63