[2026:RJ-JP:15668] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3779/2026 Mahesh Kumar Son Of Shri Chhoturam, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Jankidas Wale Post Bhaislana, Police Station Sarund, Tehsil Kotputli, District Kotputali Behror (Raj.) The Then Station House Officer Police Station Thanagazi, District Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Manish Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Mohanlal Jain, Resident Of Thanagazi, District Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 15/04/2026 1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 78/2014 registered at Police Station Thanagazi, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 120-B, 219, 196, 167, 166, 142, 327, 341, 323, 389, 504 and 406 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that a complaint was lodged against the complainant, pursuant to which he was arrested by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that in the complaint filed by the complainant, a negative final report was proposed, however, the learned court took cognizance against the petitioner and summoned him. It is contended that for the first time petitioner came to know about [2026:RJ-JP:15668] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-3779/2026] the issuance of the arrest warrant on 15.12.2025 and he could not appear before the concerned trial court, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application. It is contended that cognizance was taken against the petitioner on 12.02.2019, therefore summons were issued, however, the petitioner avoided the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner was fully aware about the issuance of summons and willfully avoided the appearance before the concerned trial court. Consequently, an arrest warrant was issued against him, yet he still did not appear before the court, therefore, his anticipatory bail application deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. In the impugned order, the learned trial court has recorded that cognizance against the petitioner was taken on 12.09.2019 and he was summoned to appear before the court, however, he failed to appear and remained absconding for about six years. On 15.12.2025 the petitioner was again directed to appear through the issuance of an arrest warrant, but he did not appear before the concerned court, therefore considering the aforesaid facts, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and his anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /74