Pendency of Other Criminal Cases No Ground to Deny Bail: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has reinforced the principle that the mere existence of multiple criminal antecedents cannot serve as a solitary basis for the deprivation of liberty, holding that bail applications must be evaluated on the independent merits of each case rather than the gravity of pending litigation. The ruling clarifies that procedural delays and the nature of the trial must outweigh the prosecution's reliance on a petitioner's past record when no flight risk is established.

In a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeet Purohit considered the plea of an accused-applicant allegedly involved in a recruitment scam. The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(3), 61(2), and 112(2) of the BNS, 2023, relating to the 'Shorya Foundation' where unemployed youths were purportedly cheated under the guise of providing employment.

Judicial Scrutiny of Criminal Antecedents

The prosecution vehemently opposed the bail plea, citing five criminal antecedents against the applicant. However, the Bench relied on the legal position established by the Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( "(2020) 11 SCC 648": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 573) to observe that such factors alone cannot justify the refusal of bail. The Bench noted that the investigation was complete, and the applicant had already been in custody since August 2026.

Addressing the factual matrix, the Rajasthan High Court highlighted a significant delay of eight months in lodging the FIR. It further observed that the allegations primarily concerned a dispute over non-provision of employment and non-refund of money, and that co-accused Bhavik Vyas had already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench. The Court observed that "So far as the factum of criminal antecedents of applicant is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( "(2020) 11 SCC 648": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 573) has held that gravity of alleged offences or mere pendency of other criminal case(s) cannot be a sufficient ground to deny bail. The fact and circumstance of particular case or material available on record must be analyzed independently while considering prayer for grant of bail."

Background

The case originated from FIR No. 104/2025 at Police Station Ghantali, District Pratapgarh. It was alleged that approximately 150 unemployed individuals were lured with employment promises through the "Shorya Foundation." The victims reportedly paid amounts ranging from Rs.40,000 to Rs.60,000 as registration charges but were neither provided jobs nor refunded their money. The applicant's counsel argued that the allegations essentially related to a dispute over non-refund and that primary allegations of payment were against other individuals named Kishor and Manilal. The Rajasthan High Court, noting that no recovery was due and no flight risk was expressed, allowed the application.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13533/2026
Case Title: Jigar v. State Of Rajasthan
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Bikha Ram Bishnoi
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 25991