PRASUN MANDAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-10. PRASUN MANDAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:38116] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6435/2026 CNR: RJHC010484412026 | URN: CRLMB / 14257U / 2026 Prasun Mandal S/o Panchanan Mandal, Aged About 40 Years, Chandipur Colony, Gadaro Jhargram Post Lodhasuli Jhargram District West Medinipur (West Bengal), Currently Salt Lake Sector 5 Police Station Salt Lake Sector 5 Kolkata (West Bengal) 721507. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Order 10/08/2026 1. This bail application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S. No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 43/2026 2. Date of lodging FIR 05. 02. 2026 3. Concerned Police Station Kotwali Bhilwara 4. District Bhilwara 5.
Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS. 6. Offences added, if any 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and false allegations have been levelled against him. He further submits that the petitioner [2026:RJ-JP:38116] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6435/2026] has no role in committing the crime in question and principal allegation is against co-accused-Sumit Agarwal. The offences alleged against the present petitioner are triable by Magistrate and thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Therefore, the petitioner may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of benefit of anticipatory bail. However, he is not in a position to refute the fact that principal allegation is against co-accused Sumit Agarwal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of this case and after perusing the case diary so also considering the facts that prima facie, investigation indicates that the principal allegation is against co-accused-Sumit Agarwal; and the offences alleged against the present petitioner are triable by Magistrate; in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner- Prasun Mandal S/o Panchanan Mandal, in connection with the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a [2026:RJ-JP:38116] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6435/2026] personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each along with two sureties of Rs.
25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S. H. O. on the following conditions :- (i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii). that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and (iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (SUNIL BENIWAL),J 62/Ajay Singh
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.