[2026:RJ-JP:3375] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 411/2026 1. Rachna Gupta @ Sapna Gupta W/o Shri Anuj Gupta, R/o B.e. -90 Shalimar Bagh, S.o. North West Delhi 110088. 2. Anuj Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Ganesh Babu, R/o B.e. -90 Shalimar Bagh, S.o. North West Delhi 110088. 3. Shashwat Bansal S/o Shri Anuj Kumar Gupta, R/o B.e. - 90 Shalimar Bagh, S.o. North West Delhi 110088. ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Arunima Bansal W/o petitioner no.3 and daughter-in-law of petitioners no.1 and 2 is present For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma is present in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 24/01/2026 1. Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.164/2025 registered at P.S. Shahajahanpur, District Kotputli- Behror for offences under Sections 420, 406, 468 and 120B of IPC, the petitioners have preferred this bail application under Section 482 BNSS. 2. Heard the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Ms. Arunima Bansal, wife of petitioner no.3 and daughter-in- law of petitioners no.1 and 2 submits that on the assurance given by the complainant, all the petitioners agreed to sell the property [2026:RJ-JP:3375] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-411/2026] mentioned in the FIR to the complainant, and in pursuance thereof, an agreement to sell was executed between the parties. It is further submitted that part payment was received from the complainant; however, thereafter a dispute arose between the parties and the agreement could not be materilized. She again submits that the entire dispute is civil in nature, arising out of agreement to sale between the parties to which criminal colour has been given on false and concocted grounds. The petitioners are ready and willing to join the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners may be allowed. 4. On the contrary, the complainant Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma vehemently objected the bail application and submitted that there was an agreement between the parties for purchase of the property from the petitioners, and in pursuance thereof part payment was made to the petitioners. However, due to a dispute between the parties regarding transfer of share and the remaining amount, the transaction could not be completed. Now, petitioners have dishonestly neither returning the consideration amount nor are ready to comply with the agreement. He further submits that the petitioners are habitual offenders and, therefore, do not deserve any relief. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. 6. Considering the fact that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case and the fact that the case appears prima facie of a civil dispute but without [2026:RJ-JP:3375] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-411/2026] commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the bail application of the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 482 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the Rachna Gupta @ Sapna Gupta W/o Shri Anuj Gupta, Anuj Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Ganesh Babu and Shashwat Bansal S/o Shri Anuj Kumar Gupta, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing 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 petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/267