[2026:RJ-JP:20691] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6104/2026 Dimple Khetan D/o Laxminarayan Khetan, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 2 B -1115, Raheja Classique Link Road, Oshiwara, Mumbai. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Nandkishore Gupta S/o Shri Rudmal Gupta, Aged About 67 Years, R/o 6Th Floor, Apex Mall, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr Chitransh Mathur, Adv. Mr. Anurag Kalavatiya, Adv. Mr. Sushil Daga, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Hemant Kankoriya, Adv. Ms. Anu Shree Agarwal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 15/05/2026 1. Apprehending her arrest in connection with FIR No.327/2025, registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, District Jaipur City (South), for the offences under Sections 308(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of BNS and Section 66 of the IT Act, the accused-petitioner has preferred this criminal miscellaneous bail application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that the petitioner has raised a bill of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- for work executed by her on the instructions of the complainant. It is also contended that the petitioner is a qualified chartered [2026:RJ-JP:20691] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-6104/2026] accountant practicing in Mumbai and has been an independent director on the boards of various listed companies. The petitioner possesses substantial experience in real estate advisory, project analysis and financial structuring. It is also contended that the accused petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR, which has been lodged as a counterblast to her prior police complaint dated 01.09.2025, lodged at Mumbai, and the present FIR is motivated by malice to settle a dispute which is purely of a civil nature. It is argued that the petitioner, being a chartered accountant by profession, has long worked in the real estate sector. The complainant, a prominent real estate developer, came into professional contact with the other party in Mumbai in 2016 and thereafter maintained regular professional contact. It was mutually agreed that the petitioner would identify and provide details of real estate projects to the complainant and his companies, and, in consideration thereof, she would be entitled to a commission, understood to be 20% of the project's profit. It is also argued that the petitioner has been in continuous professional contact with the complainant for the past 10 years. During this period, she has conducted extensive research and provided various project-related inputs to the complainant, including a project with Ambika Brickwell LLP in Borivali, Mumbai. It is further argued that the petitioner demanded her rightful commission and professional fees under the mandate executed between the petitioner and Ambika Brickwell LLP in Borivali, Mumbai, and raised an invoice dated 20.02.2025 for the services rendered by her. It is also contended that pursuant to the discussions between the parties, an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was processed by the [2026:RJ-JP:20691] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-6104/2026] complainant on 25.02.2025 through cheque bearing No.124488 of State Bank of India, out of which Rs. 20,000/- was deducted as TDS and a net amount of Rs. 9,80,000/- was received by the petitioner. The deduction of TDS clearly establishes that the payment was treated as a business transaction towards services rendered by the petitioner. The said transaction, therefore, by no stretch of imagination can be construed as an act of "Extortion". It is further contended that the complainant did not pay the legitimate amount to the petitioner; therefore, she was left with no alternative but to lodge a complaint dated 01.09.2025 at Amboli Police Station, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai. It is contended that the present FIR is nothing but a cross-case and tantamounts to an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation; therefore, her anticipatory bail application may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted the factual report, which is taken on record. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, have vehemently opposed the grant of the anticipatory bail application. It is contended that the petitioner raised a fake bill of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and threatened the complainant to entangle him in a false case, and that, under coercion, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The petitioner continued to demand the amount without any agreement between the complainant and the petitioner, and the petitioner has not executed any work for the company. It is also contended that the petitioner has failed to show that any agreement was ever entered into between the [2026:RJ-JP:20691] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-6104/2026] petitioner and the complainant regarding their professional work. It is further contended that the conduct of the petitioner itself is reflective from the report which the petitioner lodged at the Amboli Police Station, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai alleging that the petitioner was called by the complainant to the Oberoi Hotel on 05.12.2022 in Room No.1164 in the context of discussing business projects and offered her juice and after consuming that drink she started feeling dizzy and the petitioner sexually molested her. The report lodged by the petitioner at the Police Station on 01.09.2025 itself is an act of extortion. It is argued that had there been any physical or sexual molestation of the petitioner then the petitioner could not simultaneously have entered into business partnership with the complainant, the complainant and the petitioner were in continuous chatting through Whatsapp since 2016 upto 2025, therefore, the allegation alleged in the complaint that the complainant sexually molested and harassed the petitioner is an abuse of process and law made just to extort money from the complainant, therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner's anticipatory bail application may be dismissed. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. The lodging of the FIR against the complainant alleging molestation and sexual harassment on 01.09.2025 at Amboli Police Station, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai is enough to show the conduct of the petitioner and her intent. The petitioner has raised a bill of Rs.2,00,00,000/- without any contract or agreement between the parties, the Whatsapp chats communicated between the petitioner and the complainant itself are enough to show that [2026:RJ-JP:20691] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-6104/2026] they were in a continuous contact through mobile phone from 2016 upto registration of the FIR, had there been any sexual harassment with the petitioner by the complainant then by no stretch of imagination the petitioner could have continued with the communication over Whatsapp with the complainant. It is also to be noted that no record is placed before this Court indicating that the petitioner ever entered into an agreement with the complainant or his company, Ambika Brickwell LLP, in Borivali, Mumbai, and that the petitioner is entitled to 10% of the project's profits as consideration for her professional services. The petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court that Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was pending against the complainant company. The investigation prima facie shows that the bill of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was raised only to extort money from the complainant. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the accused petitioner on anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application filed by the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-98