[2026:RJ-JP:13279] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4822/2026 Anurag S/o Rajesh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ganesham Apartment, Roadram Nagar, Patrakar Colony, First Floor, Mansarover Extension, Jaipur, Raj. ---Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Kritin Sharma for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 30/03/2026 1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 482 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 288/2025 registered at Police Station Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur for the offence(s) under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(2) of BNS, 2023 and the learned Trial Court amidst the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2) of BNS, 2023 dismissed the bail application before it. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that the applicant is 38 years of age, having no criminal antecedents. It is submitted that FIR is registered with an inordinate delay of six months, and that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is submitted that present is a dispute among family members, grand-mother/father and other relatives are bent upon to ruin the applicants' life, being unhappy with love marriage solemnized long back. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposing the instant bail [2026:RJ-JP:13279] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-4822/2026] application submitted that present is a case of fraud amongst close relatives. It is submitted that the complainant is grand- mother of the applicant, aged approximately 85 years who was living in Gangapur City and had come for treatment of her unwell husband in the month February and March, wherein on deception that her husband is seriously ill and money is required for treatment, the complainant was taken to the locker of the Bank, from where ornaments and other assets were taken out by the applicant who is her grand-son with ulterior motive. It is further submitted that delay in lodging the FIR is for the reason that the incident was inter-se the family members, and settlement qua balance of money. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court specifically took note of the fact that the CCTV footage reflects presence of applicant at the said place of incident. Moreover, the contents of the FIR reflect that grand-father died due to ill treatment. 4. Having heard the contentions made by the counsel representing both the parties, upon a perusal of the material available on record and overall facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to allow the anticipatory bail application, as there are prima facie disputed questions of fact and the scope of interference in anticipatory bail application is limited, and the Courts need not to conduct a microscopic examination of the matter. 5. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 482 BNSS is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK /43