[2026:RJ-JP:4145] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1376/2026 Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Praveen Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Plot No. 100, Vikas Nagar, Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Police Station Karni Vihar, District Jaipur (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 29/01/2026 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.373/2025 registered at Police Station Sodala, District Jaipur City (South) for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) & 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel contends that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is contended that as per prosecution case, complainant took franchisees from Taskar Giobal Pvt. Ltd. to open a retail pharmacist store at the location of the complainant and in this regard, an agreement was executed between the Company and the complainant. It is contended that petitioner was simply the witness of the said agreement and there is no allegation in the FIR [2026:RJ-JP:4145] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1376/2026] against the petitioner that any amount was paid to him. It is contended that it is an admitted case that entire amount was paid to the company. Learned counsel submits that bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that there is commercial transaction between the parties and in the garb of criminal investigation, complainant wants to recover the amount paid by him to the Company. It is submitted that two other cases are shown to be registered against the petitioner and same are also registered against the Company and being an employee, petitioner has been implicated in these cases. It is submitted that trial will take time in its conclusion. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 09.01.2026 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially considering the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; so also the fact that reason of dispute is commercial transaction; trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Praveen Sharma, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes [2026:RJ-JP:4145] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1376/2026] a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /294