Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8882 (RAJ)

SUKHDEV SHARMA S/O MATHURA PRASAD SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/2335/2026 · 2026-06-24

Ravi Chirania

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:23572] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2335/2026 Sukhdev Sharma S/o Mathura Prasad Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 364-A, Krishi Nagar, Toll Tax, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA (V.J.) Order 24/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. This anticipatory bail application has been preferred by the accused-petitioner Sukhdev Sharma S/o Mathura Prasad Sharma under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., 2023, apprehending his arrest in connection with the FIR No. 739/2023 dated 18.12.2023 registered at Police Station Malpura Gate, Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 167 of IPC, 1860. 3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is simply a broker and has not committed any offence, though he admits and fairly states that though the registration of the property was done, however, possession was not given even after more than two and a half years despite the fact that the complainant/purchaser paid the entire amount. In view of the above, learned counsel prays [2026:RJ-JP:23572] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2335/2026] that he has a limited role of broker in the case and therefore, be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application. 5. This Court considered that the petitioner already has three cases of similar nature in the past of the year 2022, 2023 and 2024 respectively out of which two of them are registered in the same police station. 6. This Court, after considering the overall facts and circumstances, is not inclined to exercise its powers under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. and deems it just and proper not to grant anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the present bail application is hereby dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA (V.J.)),J 136/PARSHANT/RACHNA