Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1548 (RAJ)

SURESH CHAND S/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/2833/2026 · 2026-03-23

Sameer Jain

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:12024] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2833/2026 Suresh Chand S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Prasad, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Talawada, Police Station Sadar Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma with Mr. Lakhan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Jaideep Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 23/03/2026 1. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 482 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 241/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur for the offence(s) under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 61(2) and 344 of the BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that accused-applicant was discharging duties on the post of Manager at Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Talawada, Panchayat Samiti, Gangapur City. It is submitted that allegations of duping an amount to the tune of approximately Rs.3,66,00,000/- have been levelled against the applicant. It is further submitted that amount to the tune of approximately Rs.1,34,00,000/- has [2026:RJ-JP:12024] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2833/2026] already been repaid to the investors/depositors who are alleged to be have been duped. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the instant anticipatory bail application. 4. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court takes note of the fact that both the departmental enquiry as well as the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Deputy Registrar prima facie disclose a case of embezzlement against the applicant. In view of the aforesaid and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to allow the present anticipatory bail application. 5. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS stands dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J RAHUL KUMAR /14