[2026:RJ-JP:5016] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13721/2025 Sanjay Saxena S/o Shri Uma Shankar Saxena, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 151, Manas Nagar, Shahganj, Agra (Up) Dy. Manager Sahara City Homes, Sahara Prime City Limited, Radhaswami Vyas Ke Samne, Beelwa, Tonk Road, Jaipur At Present In Central Jail Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P. 2. Rajesh Chanana S/o Shri P.N. Saxena, R/o 1324, Kisan Marg, Barkatnagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. At Present R/o S-238, S Block Avenue, Mahavir Nagar-I, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Mr. Dhruv Atre For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Gaurav Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 03/02/2026 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 03.10.2025, passed by the Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan City-I, rejecting the bail application of the petitioner on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, in relation to Consumer Application No.30/2020 whereby the learned Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the [2026:RJ-JP:5016] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-13721/2025] Commission’) has rejected the Second Bail Application filed by the petitioner under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Mr. Rajesh Chanana filed a consumer complaint before the Commission against one M/S Sahara Prime City Ltd. / Sahara India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Company’) which was registered as Complaint No. 94/2019. The Commission, vide judgment dated 13.03.2020, while allowing the complaint held that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 40,91,166/- along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit. The complainant is also held entitled to get Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- towards the cost of proceedings, payable within a period of one month, failing which the same would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order. 2.1 Since the said order was not complied with by the Company, the complainant filed a Contempt Petition under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2019’) before the Commission against the petitioner as well as the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company. After recording the statement of complainant under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Cr.P.C’), the Commission took cognizance and summoned the petitioner through bailable warrants. 2.3 Despite the summons being issued by the Commission, the petitioner did not appear, therefore, standing warrant of arrest was issued against him vide order dated 03.04.2025. [2026:RJ-JP:5016] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-13721/2025] In compliance with the said standing warrant, the petitioner was arrested on 29.07.2025 and was produced before the Commission on 30.07.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody. The bail application filed by him under Section 436 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Commission, against which the petitioner moved a regular bail application before the Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan City-I which was also dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Court has erred in rejecting the bail application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this court, in another case of the present petitioner in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12106/2025, has held that bail application under Section 483 before the Sessions Court is maintainable against the rejection of bail application by the Commission. 4. On merits, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is only an employee of the Company and therefore, is not under an obligation to comply with the directions issued by the Commission. It is further submitted that maximum punishment provided under Section 72 of the Act of 2019 is three years and the petitioner is behind bars since 30.07.2025. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the present bail application is not maintainable inasmuch as, against the order passed by the Commission, the appeal [2026:RJ-JP:5016] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-13721/2025] as per the Act of 2019 lies before the National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposes the bail application. 7. It is relevant to note that similar issue in respect of the same petitioner has come up before a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12106/2025 wherein the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 16.01.2026, after taking note of the provisions of Section 72 and 73 of the Act of 2019, has held that since Section 72 (2) of the Act of 2019 specifically deems the Commission to be a Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of trial, its procedural actions which are not covered by the special act, must be governed by the general criminal law. It is further held that if the bail application is filed before the Commission and same is rejected, then the said person would be at liberty to seek bail before the Sessions Court under Section 483 of BNSS. The relevant paras of the said order are reproduced hereunder:- 7. Given this statutory framework, it is clear that while trying an offence under Section 72 of the Act, 2019 the District, State, or National Commission act as a Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class. Consequently, an order rejecting bail under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 480 of BNSS) may be challenged before the concerned Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 483 of BNSS), as the Act provides no alternative or statutory remedy against such orders. 8. The Court's reasoning is built on a vital distinction between a statutory appeal and the inherent right to seek bail. While Section 73(2) of the Act, 2019 contains a bar stating that no appeal shall lie before any other Court, this restriction is specifically directed at appeal. A bail application cannot fall within the ambit of this bar as it is not an appeal and it is a request for the protection of personal liberty during the pendency of a criminal trial. [2026:RJ-JP:5016] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-13721/2025] Because Section 73(1) of the Act, 2019 is highly restrictive and only provides a remedy for those already convicted under Section 72(1) of the Act, 2019, the legislature has left a procedural vacuum regarding interlocutory or intermediate orders. Consequently, when the Commission denies bail, it is not passing an order that is appealable under the Act’s internal hierarchy and it creates a remedy gap that must be addressed to prevent indefinite detention like in the present case without having any forum to file a further application for grant of bail. 9. To fill this very gap, this Court observes that since Section 72(2) of the Act, 2019 specifically deems the Commission to be a Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the trial, its procedural actions which are not covered by the special act, must be governed by the general criminal law. Because the Act provides no internal mechanism to challenge a bail rejection, the provisions of the BNSS (or CrPC) ought to necessarily step in such a situation. In the present case, the petitioner is not seeking "right to appeal" under the Act, but is praying for a fresh bail application under concurrent jurisdiction of the Sessions Court or High Court provided under Section 483 of BNSS (Corresponding to Section 439 of Cr.P.C.). 10. In view of the above observations, this Court holds that if any person appears or is brought before the District, State, or National Commission, as the case may be, for the trial punishable under Section 72 of the Act, 2019, and files a bail application before the Commission and the said bail application is rejected by the Commission, then the said person would be at liberty to seek bail before the concerned Sessions Court under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.). The Sessions Court shall then decide such bail application on its merits without questioning its maintainability. 11. Now adverting to the peculiar facts of the present case, it is noticed that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence is three years. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration of more than five months. In these circumstances, relegating the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court for the same purpose he has approached this Court, would not only be unduly harsh but would also not serve the ends of justice. This Court is vested with concurrent jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS, and therefore, considering the nature of the allegations, the period of custody already undergone, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail, subject to appropriate terms and conditions which may be imposed by the trial Court. [2026:RJ-JP:5016] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-13721/2025] 8. In view of the above, it is clear that the Sessions Court has the jurisdiction, under Section 483 of BNSS, to decide bail application, after its rejection by the Commission. 9. Following the above order and considering the fact that under section 483 of BNSS, this court is vested with the concurrent jurisdiction of granting bail, along with the Sessions Court, hence, instead of relegating the petitioner to file fresh bail application before Sessions Court, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the instant bail application. 10. Hence, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, his status as an employee of the company and the fact that he has been in custody for more than six months, without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 11. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner, namely Sanjay Saxena S/o Sh. Uma Shankar Saxena shall be released on bail subject to the appropriate terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Commission. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SKS/25