Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bharat Bhargav Gaur vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 August, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JP:36003]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5795/2026
CNR: RJHC010675722026 | URN: CRLMP / 10301U / 2026
Bharat Bhargav Gaur S/o Shri Gokul Chand Bhargav, Aged About
35 Years, Resident Of Village Loha Tehsil Ratangarh District
Churu Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Omprakash S/o Shri Magaram Nai, Aged About 58 Years,
Resident Of Village Loha Tehsil Ratangarh District Churu
Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
03/08/2026
By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition, the
petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your
Lordships may graciously be pleased to:
a) Quash and set aside FIR No. 0237/2026 registered at
Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the
petitioner.
b) Direct the respondent authorities to provide adequate
protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner against
any arbitrary arrest under Section 151 CrPC or related
provisions.
C) Pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit
in the interest of justice.”
2. Drawing the attention of the Court to the impugned FIR as
well as the printouts of the telephonic conversations annexed with
the case file, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no
(Uploaded on 04/08/2026 at 10:05:01 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/08/2026 at 08:35:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36003] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5795/2026]
offence under Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(“BNS”) or Section 66 of the Information Technology Act is made
out against the petitioner. He submitted that the material available
on record clearly indicates that the petitioner, by none of his
actions, insulted the complainant or any other person in a manner
likely to cause a breach of peace. He further submitted that, as a
matter of fact, the alleged telephonic conversations were
intentionally made viral by the complainant’s side only with a view
to settle personal scores with the petitioner and to compel him to
compromise in the pending criminal cases between the parties.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the local MLA is also
attempting to exert pressure upon the investigating agency to
investigate the matter in a particular direction, which is contrary
to the mandate of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the impugned FIR
be quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
present criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 528 of
the BNSS is wholly misconceived. He submitted that the
investigation against the petitioner is still at a preliminary stage.
According to him, the material available on record prima facie
discloses the commission of offences under Section 352 of the
BNS and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. Learned
Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal“, has categorically
held that the High Court should ordinarily refrain from interfering
with an ongoing investigation and that an FIR should be quashed
only in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations contained
(Uploaded on 04/08/2026 at 10:05:01 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/08/2026 at 08:35:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36003] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5795/2026]
therein, even if accepted at their face value, do not disclose the
commission of any cognizable offence against the accused. He,
therefore, prayed that the present criminal miscellaneous petition
be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon a
careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court
prima facie finds that the offences alleged against the petitioner
are either triable by a Magistrate or do not carry a maximum
punishment exceeding seven years. Keeping in view the provisions
contained in Section 35 of the BNSS (corresponding to Sections 41
and 41-A of the Cr.P.C.), as well as the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar“,
AIR 2014 SC 2756, the ratio of which squarely applies mutatis
mutandis to the present case, it is directed that, if the
Investigating Agency finds the arrest of the petitioner to be
absolutely necessary, instead of effecting his arrest forthwith, a
prior notice of 15 days shall be served upon him so as to enable
him to avail his legal remedies in accordance with law. Needless to
observe, the petitioner shall also be at liberty to raise all his
permissible contentions before the competent Court at the
appropriate stage.
6. Insofar as the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that
the police may not conduct a fair investigation or that he may be
subjected to harm at the hands of politically influential persons is
concerned, it is sufficient to observe that this order shall not
preclude the petitioner from submitting a detailed representation
to the concerned Superintendent of Police as well as the
Investigating Officer ventilating his grievances. In the event such
(Uploaded on 04/08/2026 at 10:05:01 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/08/2026 at 08:35:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36003] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5795/2026]
a representation is submitted, the concerned authorities shall
consider the same objectively and deal with it strictly in
accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition,
along with the stay application, stands disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
52/Divya Raj Jasmatiya
(Uploaded on 04/08/2026 at 10:05:01 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/08/2026 at 08:35:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
