[2026:RJ-JP:19051] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No.6/2026 Kushagra Bhushan S/o Shri Devendra Bhushan Gupta, Aged About 30 Years, R/o A-20 Gokul Vatika, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Gajan Singh Choudhary S/o Shri Khubiram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Chandra Colony, Nagar Road, Nadbai, Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gorang Agarwal. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Rajesh Maharshi Mr. Devanshu Saini Mr. Yogesh Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order Date of conclusion of arguments:- 27.04.2026 Date on which the judgment was Reserved :- 27.04.2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced:- Full Judgment Date of pronouncement:- 06.05.2026 1. The petitioner, Kushagra Bhushan, has filed an application seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2, Gajan Singh Choudhary, as per the impugned order dated [2026:RJ-JP:19051] (2 of 7) [CRLBC-6/2026] 17.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, Rajasthan, and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metro-II. 2. The petitioner’s counsel argues that FIR No. 241/2025, lodged on 18.07.2025 at Vishwakarma Police Station in Jaipur (West), alleges misappropriation of Rs. 1.5 crores by respondent No. 2. Following the FIR’s registration, respondent No. 2 filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5477/2025 to quash the FIR. The High Court, in its order dated 09.09.2025, noted that if the Investigating Officer deemed custodial interrogation necessary, they would issue a 15-day prior notice, explaining the reasons for arrest. 3. The counsel contends that the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the seriousness of this economic offence, which involves systematic breach of trust and misappropriation of around Rs. 1.5 crore. 4. The counsel also argues that custodial questioning was essential to trace financial transactions, bank dealings, and the diversion of funds, and to recover the misappropriated amount. Despite the Investigating Agency issuing the required notices and recording the grounds for arrest, the Sessions Court overlooked this need and granted anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2. 5. It is further contended that respondent No. 2 secured anticipatory bail by taking advantage of the initial incomplete invocation of Sections 318(3) and 316(2) of BNS, even though the allegations clearly constitute an offence under Section 316(5) of BNS. [2026:RJ-JP:19051] (3 of 7) [CRLBC-6/2026] 6. Moreover, the counsel further asserts that the Sessions Court cannot override the order passed by the High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5477/2025. The counsel argues that the court’s act was contrary to judicial propriety and that granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 violates the High Court’s order, warranting cancellation of the bail. 7. Citing precedents, the counsel refer to the judgment in Man Singh v. Ganga Singh & Anr., RLR 1989 (2) 433, in which the Rajasthan High Court revoked bail after observing that the accused had influenced the investigation and misused their liberty. The counsel further relies on the Supreme Court ruling in Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi & Ors., (2003) (8) SCC 319, which emphasises that fraud on the court and suppression of material facts justify interference with orders under the inherent powers. 8. On the other hand, respondent No. 2’s counsel opposed the cancellation application. 9. The counsel states that the High Court’s order passed in the Criminal Misc. petition did not strip the Sessions Court of its authority under Section 482 of the BNSS. 10. The counsel argues that there was a genuine apprehension of arrest, as the Investigating Officer served a notice on 10.07.2025, alleging recovery of Rs. 1.5 crore, prompting the respondent No. 2 to seek protection in the Sessions Court. 11. The counsel also pointed out that the order in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5477/2025 did not bar respondent No. 2 from seeking anticipatory bail, and his application was rightly filed. [2026:RJ-JP:19051] (4 of 7) [CRLBC-6/2026] 12. Additionally, the respondent counsel submits that the police cannot act as recovery agents. The notice issued by the Investigating Officer was essentially a recovery attempt, which is inappropriate. Furthermore, the respondent No. 2 appeared before the Investigating Officer following the order passed in a criminal miscellaneous petition by the High Court and fully cooperated with the investigation. This fact is documented in the impugned order. 13. Counsel for respondent No. 2 cites judgments passed in Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 16 SCC 508, and Meena Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 368, to bolster the arguments. 14. Before dealing with the issue, it would be relevant to refer to the contents of FIR, which reads as follows:- Complainant Kushagra Bhushan filed a report stating that he is a director of Suyog Sales Pvt. Ltd., a company established in 2021. His firm is a distributor for Hindustan Unilever, engaged in buying and selling FFCG products. Gajan Singh, a sales team leader at Hindustan Unilever, was employed by Bhushan to oversee purchasing, sales, collections, bank deposits, and accounting tasks. In October 2024, his company was due to make a payment of around sixty lakh rupees to Hindustan Unilever. Gajan Singh informed him that he did not have such a large sum in his account. An investigation revealed that goods worth five crore rupees, sold between July and October 2024, were not billed. Although Gajan Singh had sold products totalling five crore rupees, only four crore rupees were deposited into the company's [2026:RJ-JP:19051] (5 of 7) [CRLBC-6/2026] account. When questioned, Gajan Singh began evading explanations. Due to mounting losses, the business was forced to shut down in June 2025. During account verification, it was discovered that Gajan Singh had embezzled Rs. 1.5 crore by selling the company's goods and pocketing the proceeds. Upon asking about this, Gajan Singh threatened him, and it later came to light that Gajan Singh had also resigned from Hindustan Unilever. In this way, Gajan Singh misappropriated Rs. 1.5 crore from Bhushan’s company, using it for his own benefit. By selling company goods and recovering money from sales, he gained wrongful profits, causing a wrongful loss to the complainant. An FIR No.241/2025 was registered under Sections 318(3) and 316(2) of the BNS and an investigation was launched. 15. Having examined all the evidence, we observe that the order passed in Criminal Misc. Petition under section 528 of BNSS by the Coordinate Bench does not prevent respondent No. 2 from applying for anticipatory bail, nor does it restrict the court’s power to analyse the case facts and decide whether bail should be granted or refused. The authority of the sessions court under Section 482 BNSS is broader, and the order in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition does not, under any circumstances, curtail the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction. The sole purpose of the respondent's filing of the criminal miscellaneous petition was to seek quashing, and the interim order allowed the investigation to continue, with prior notice given before any arrest. 16. The decision whether to grant an anticipatory bail or not remains within the court’s discretion. [2026:RJ-JP:19051] (6 of 7) [CRLBC-6/2026] 17. The second part of the petitioner’s argument questions the court’s discretion in granting pre-arrest bail. However, a careful review of the case shows that the investigating agency issued a notice to respondent No. 2, directing his personal appearance for recovery of the alleged amount of Rs. 1.5 crore. The facts state that respondent No. 2 appeared before the authorities as directed and was extensively questioned. The sole reason for seeking a custodial investigation was to recover the alleged misappropriated amount. After considering recent Supreme Court judgments, the Sessions Court noted that recovery efforts involving alleged counter-allegations are not permissible in criminal proceedings. The court also observed that there is no material on record to substantiate the complainant's claim that the petitioner was an employee of the complainant's company, and instead found that Hindustan Unilever appointed the petitioner. 18. The sessions Courts, in exercise of the powers contained in section 482 of the BNSS, have rightly invoked jurisdiction & after considering the entire material placed before it, granted anticipatory bail in favour of the accused respondent number 2. Hence, the petitioner’s claims that the Sessions Court overstepped its bounds and violated the High Court's intervening order are unfounded. 19. It is well-established law that courts can only revoke bail in exceptional circumstances. In this case, no such compelling reason exists to interfere with the order. [2026:RJ-JP:19051] (7 of 7) [CRLBC-6/2026] 20. Resultantly, the application for cancelling the bail granted to the respondent number 2 stands dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav /86 106/-