MAHESH KHANDELWAL SON OF BALMUKUND KHANDELWAL, v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/4212/2026 · 2026-04-08
Ganesh Ram Meena
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1463 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1463 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:14682] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4212/2026
1. Mahesh Khandelwal Son Of Balmukund Khandelwal, Resident Of P.n. D-8, Shivaji Nagar, P.s. Baran Kotwali, District Baran, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Confined In District Jail, Baran).
2. Abhishek Khandelwal Son Of Dinesh Chand, Resident Of Guruji Ka Chowk, P.s. Kotwali Baran, District Baran, (At Present Accused Confined In District Jail, Baran). ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order 08/04/2026
1. This bail application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No. 113/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran for offences punishable u/S 288 of the BNS and Section 5 & 9B of the Explosives Act.
2.
Learned counsel for the accused petitioners submits that the accused petitioners are the license holder for fire crackers shop. He further submits that when the authorities of the Municipal Council were harassing the petitioners by one or the other way, he made a complaint, which was registered as FIR No. 279/2025 on 21.10.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and Section 61(2) of the BNS.
[2026:RJ-JP:14682] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4212/2026]
Learned counsel further submits that the complainant in the present criminal case was an accused alongwith two other officers, who were later on arrested in FIR No. 279/2025. Counsel further submits that just to create pressure in that criminal case, which was lodged against the authorities of the Municipal Council, the complainant, who is the XEN in the Municipal Council, Baran has made a search alleging that the petitioners are having the storage of explosive substance in excess than the permissible quantity.
Learned counsel for the accused petitioners also submits that the accused petitioners are in custody since 20.02.2026 and the only allegation which has been levelled against the accused petitioners is of storage of explosive substance in excess than the permissible quantity under the license, which could be an offence of contravention of the provisions of the license and for that the maximum punishment is two years.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the complaints are being made against the accused petitioner since 2018, and recently in a search, it was found that the accused petitioners made storage of explosive substance in excess of the permissible quantity under the license issued in their favour. He also submits that the petitioners were in intention to make an explosion.
4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the case diary.
5. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case so also the allegations against the accused petitioners i.e. the storage of the explosive substance in excess of the
[2026:RJ-JP:14682] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4212/2026] permissible quantity under the license and more particularly the fact that the complainant is the person against whom the petitioners have earlier lodged a criminal case under the PC Act and the fact that the petitioners are in custody since 20.02.2026, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused petitioners on bail.
6. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided that they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only)(each), together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /74