[2026:RJ-JP:25052] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8980/2026 URN: CRLMB / 16473U / 2026 Pakhandi S/o Late Shri Ramphal, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village Aagrri, Police Thana Sadar Karauli, District Karauli, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Shanker Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 06/07/2026 1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 482 BNSS in connection with F.I.R. No.183/2023 registered at Police Station Sadar Karauli, District-Karauli for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 420, 467, 468, 177 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR was initially lodged against the petitioner alleging that, despite having six children, he submitted a false affidavit. He had contested the election and was successful. He further submits that no election petition was ever filed against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after thorough investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a negative final report. Thereafter, the complainant filed a protest petition, and on the said protest petition, the learned Trial Court [2026:RJ-JP:25052] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8980/2026] took cognizance vide order dated 28.03.2026 and straightaway directed issuance of arrest warrants against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5094/2023 dated 26.05.2023 to buttress his argument, while also relying upon the judgment of Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that the learned Trial Court after taking cognizance, shall issue arrest warrants only in exceptional cases, where the desired result of securing the presence of the accused through bailable or non-bailable warrants is likely to fail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to participate in the proceedings before the learned Trial Court. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Considering the fact that the negative final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer, that the offences are triable by a Magistrate, the learned Trial Court has straightaway issued arrest warrants against the petitioner, and also considering the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein in similar cases anticipatory bail has been held to be maintainable, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits or [2026:RJ-JP:25052] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8980/2026] demerits of the case, deems it appropriate to pass the following order. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 482 BNSS is disposed of in the following terms: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court on or before 13.07.2026. If the petitioner appears on or before 13.07.2026, the learned Trial Court shall accept the bail bonds furnished by the petitioner as it deems appropriate and release the petitioner on bail with such conditions as the learned Trial Court may consider fit and proper. (BIPIN GUPTA),J 76/KRATIKA