20836) on 28 April, 2026

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Urn: Crlmp / 10013U / 2023Manvendra … vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20836) on 28 April, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Upman

Bench: Anil Kumar Upman

     [2026:RJ-JD:20836]

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4818/2023

     Manvendra Singh Rathore @ Monu S/o Shri Bhagat Singh
     Rathore, Aged About 25 Years, R/o In Garh Borunda, Borunda,
     Jodhpur (Raj.)
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
     1.       State of Rajasthan, through PP
     2.       Satyanarayan Agrvwal S/o Shri Kewal Chand, R/o Merta
              City, Nagaur (Raj.)
                                                                      ----Respondents


     For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Lakshya Singh Udawata
                                     Mr. Chandan Singh Jodha
     For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
                                     Ms. Deepika Vyas
                                     Mr. Sujana Ram, Inspector, SHO PS
                                     Borunda


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

REPORTABLE

28/04/2026

1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

has been filed on behalf of the accused petitioner seeking

quashing of FIR No.01/2023 registered at Police Station Borunda,

District Jodhpur Rural for offences punishable under Sections 447

and 427 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.01.2023, complainant

Satyanarayan, submitted a report at Police Station Borunda inter

alia alleging that he has a warehouse on Krishi Mandi Road,

Borunda. To the east of the warehouse, there is a public road. The

main-gate of the warehouse is also in the east side. In the west,

there is a public road. To the north is a warehouse owned by Anilji

Seriya, and to the south is Mangalaram’s warehouse. It is

(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:53:31 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 01:37:21 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20836] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-4818/2023]

submitted in the report that he is the sole owner of the warehouse

and has been in possession of the same for the last 40 years and

using it for his own use without any restriction. The electricity bill

of the warehouse is being paid in the name of his son Omprakash.

It is alleged that on 20.12.2022, Monu, S/o Shri Bhagwat, Jeetu

Singh S/o Shri Pappu, along with 10-15 others, with intention of

taking possession of the warehouse, entered in the warehouse by

breaking its lock and vandalized it and illegally inscribed name of

Madhu Singh S/o Kishan Singh, on the outside of the warehouse.

On 30.12.2022, when he came to know about this, he went to his

warehouse and found Monu, Jeetu Singh, and 10-15 others there.

When he asked them about the vandalism and writing of names in

his warehouse, they openly threatened them that they would

forcibly occupy his warehouse. They also threatened to kill him.

On the basis of the report, the police has registered the impugned

FIR (No.01/2023) for offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned

FIR has been lodged with false, frivolous and baseless allegations

and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside. He

submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence. He is

totally innocent, however, the complainant side in connivance with

the investigating agency, has falsely roped the accused petitioner

in this case. He contends that as a matter of fact, the complainant

has illegally encroached petitioner’s warehouse no.23, patta

whereof is issued in the name of grandfather of the petitioner. He

submits that thus, the petitioner is not a wrongdoer whereas

wrong has been committed with the petitioner by the complainant

side, who is actually having illegal possession over the petitioner’s

(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:53:31 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 01:37:21 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20836] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-4818/2023]

warehouse. It is also contended that the complainant and

investigating agency are in hand in glove which is apparent from

the fact that during initial investigation, only bailable offences i.e.,

447 and 427 IPC are alleged to have been committed and the

accused petitioner was enlarged on bail by the police upon

furnishing bail bonds. However, later on, in order to make it a

non-bailable case, Section 136 of the Electricity Act has been

intentionally added to the FIR without any basis. In the FIR, there

has been no whisper regarding the alleged damage, removing and

theft of the electricity meter, installed at the disputed warehouse,

by the accused petitioner attracting offence punishable under

Section 136 of the Act. Further, in earlier investigation conducted

by IO Mr. Hararam, ASI, no offence under Section 136 of the Act

was found to be proved and no complaint was filed immediately by

any official of the Electricity Department regarding alleged theft of

electricity meter but surprisingly, statement of one Mr. Sushil

Kumar, employee of the electricity department was recorded as

late as on 25.07.2023 and offence for theft of electricity meter

under Section 136 of the Act has been added. Learned counsel for

the petitioner further argues that due to invocation of offence

under Section 136 of the Act, the present case has turned into a

non-bailable case and by effect whereof, investigating agency

itself cancelled the bail bonds previously accepted by it, and

therefore, the accused petitioner had to seek refuge before this

Court, wherein he has been granted relief from arrest by order

dated 24.08.2023. Learned counsel contends that even if the

allegations in the FIR are accepted as true on the face of it, no

offence under Section 136 of the Act is made out. He thus, prays

(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:53:31 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 01:37:21 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20836] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-4818/2023]

that the instant criminal misc. petition may be accepted and the

impugned FIR may be directed to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for

the complainant oppose the submissions made by counsel for the

petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted factual report

dated 27.04.2026. Same is taken on record. It is contended by

learned counsel for the complainant that though during earlier

investigation, no offence under Section 136 of the Act was found

proved but later on, in continuation of investigation, it was noticed

and therefore, same has been added. The petitioner has levelled

bald allegation against the complainant and investigating agency

of unfair and partial investigation. The investigating agency after

conducting detailed investigation in the matter, has opined that

offences under Sections 451, 427 IPC and 136 of the Electricity

Act have been found proved against the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record. I have also perused case diary,

brought by Shri Sujanaram, Inspector, SHO PS Borunda.

6. As per case diary, during investigation, it has been found

that the complainant has been in possession of disputed

warehouse (Plot No.23) since long whereas patta of the said plot

is issued in the name of Shri Madho Singh, grandfather of the

petitioner. Thus, there is a property dispute between the parties

and during investigation, it has come out that the accused

petitioner wanted to occupy his property from the complainant.

7. On going through the material available on record and the

case diary, it becomes crystal clear that at the time of alleged

incident, no charges or any other evidence pointing towards the

(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:53:31 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 01:37:21 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20836] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-4818/2023]

theft of electricity or theft of electric equipment had been put

forward. Even the Electricity Department, which is the competent

authority for dealing with such matters, did not consider it proper

to file any FIR or initiate any case in this connection. Upon

analysis of the FIR, it is evident that it mentions only bailable

offences. It is to be noted that it was initially filed based on these

grounds alone. However, later on, Section 136 of the Electricity

Act has been added to the FIR which makes this case a non-

bailable. This Court does not find any substantial evidence or

support for adding offence under Section 136 of the Act. There is

no basis for charge under Section 136 of the Act. The meter

reader’s report, which was made one month later than when the

incident occurred, cannot in any manner support the invocation of

Section 136. This report was not immediate, credible or

corroborated. There were no records in evidence showing that

such a report was made immediately and no action was taken.

Normally, an action would have been taken if indeed there was an

act of tampering with the electric meter. Thus, in light of above,

the sequence of events strongly suggests that the addition of

Section 136 lacks bona fides and appears to have been employed

as a tool to unjustifiably curtail the liberty of the accused, rather

than as a consequence of any genuine evidentiary development.

8. Another significant matter of controversy emerging from the

instant petition is that if bail bonds are accepted once by the

investigating authority, whether they can thereafter be cancelled

by the investigating authority simply because serious offences,

which are non-bailable in nature, have been included during the

course of investigation.

(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:53:31 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 01:37:21 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20836] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-4818/2023]

9. The Court feels that such an act would be completely

unjustifiable under any circumstances. Once bail bonds have been

accepted, the investigating authority or the police officer loses his

jurisdiction in that respect, and he cannot arrogate himself the

right to cancel bail bonds. Bail bonds are a matter of judicial

discretion and the only authority who is vested with such a power

is the court itself. The inclusion of graver or non-bailable crimes in

the process of investigation will not, per se, give the investigating

agency the power to revoke automatically the bail bonds posted

by the accused, which have already been accepted by the

investigating agency. If, in the opinion of the investigating agency,

due to subsequent events, the accused no longer has grounds for

staying out on bail, then the proper procedure to follow is to go to

the court having jurisdiction and file an appropriate application for

the revocation of the bail in accordance with law.

10. Granting the investigating agency the power to revoke

automatically the bail bond posted would not only violate legal

doctrines but would also confer judicial functions to an agency not

entitled to exercise judicial powers.

11. Accordingly, it is held that the investigating agency does not

have jurisdiction to rescind bail bonds after accepting them, and in

the event it resorts to such an act, it cannot be legally sustained.

The only thing it can do is to apply to the competent court for

revocation of bail by providing valid reasons.

12. Hence, in backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the

considered opinion that in order to secure ends of justice, it is a fit

case for exercise of this Court’s inherent powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C and to hold that the facts revealed from the FIR and

(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:53:31 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 01:37:21 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20836] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-4818/2023]

case diary do not constitute offence under Section 136 of the Act

and they do not call for invocation/addition of the offence under

Section 136 of the Act. But bare perusal of the material available

on record including case diary, prima facie discloses commission of

cognizable offences and any interference at this stage would

amount to thwarting a legitimate investigation. The allegations

made in the FIR, prima facie disclose commission of cognizable

offences and cannot be said to be absurd or devoid of the

essential ingredients of the alleged offences and therefore, the

present case does not fall within any of the categories enumerated

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

: reported in 1990 INSC 363 warranting interference at the

threshold. Thus, except for offence under Section 136 of the Act, I

am not inclined to make out any comment with respect to prima

facie commission of cognizable offences, as came out during

investigation and proceedings in the impugned FIR for both such

offences may continue as per law.

13. Since, this Court has already held in foregoing paragraphs

that the Investigating Agency has no authority to cancel the bail

bonds submitted by the accused once accepted, therefore, bail

bonds earlier submitted by the petitioner shall remain in force.

14. The misc petition is thus, partly allowed. Stay application

and pending application(s) also stand(s) disposed of.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
106/Sudhir

(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:53:31 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 01:37:21 AM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)