[2026:RJ-JP:2579] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16598/2025 Ramkumar S/o Shri Guman Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Timkoli, Police Station Mansalpur, District Karauli (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Balveer Singh Beniwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 20/01/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 482 of BNSS in FIR No.184/2025 registered at Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) of BNS. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He contends that the petitioner has not obtained any loan in his own name and that no recovery notice has ever been issued to him by the concerned bank. It is further argued that the petitioner is a student and is pursuing competitive examinations. Learned counsel submits that none of the prosecution witnesses has attributed any specific role to the present petitioner. Hence, no [2026:RJ-JP:2579] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-16598/2025] custodial interrogation is warranted and the bail application deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the petitioner had obtained a loan from the bank in his own name by mortgaging fake gold. He submits that when the fraud committed by the petitioner along with other co-accused came to light, the concerned bank lodged the FIR. It is further argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for a fair and effective investigation. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations against the present petitioner of obtaining a huge loan amounting to ₹1.20 crore by mortgaging fake gold, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. 5. On consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, and in view of the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor, particularly with regard to the necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner in connection with the role allegedly played by him in the forgery, and without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. is rejected. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI 77/17