SANJAY SAXENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail application has been filed under Sec. 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, against the order dtd. 4/9/2025, passed in Consumer Complaint No.104/2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No.09/2022 by Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jaipur, whereby learned Commission has rejected the second bail application moved by the petitioner under Sec. 436 of Cr.P.C./Sec. 478 of BNSS.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 18/6/2019, a complaint was filed by Smt. Pratibha Srivastava and Shri Gaurav Srivastava before the Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commission") against Sahara Prime City Ltd. and others, which was registered as Complaint Case No.104/2019. The learned Commission vide order dtd. 16/8/2021 allowed the said complaint and directed the non-applicants to return the amount of Rs.66,07,973.00 along with interest @ 10% p.a. to the complainant. The compensation amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs with interest was also allowed. Since, the said order dtd. 16/8/2021 was not complied with, the complainants filed a contempt application No.09/2022 before the Commission on 24/1/2022 impleading the present petitioner as respondent No.4. The petitioner did not appear before the Commission and therefore, warrant was issued against him. In pursuance of the warrant issued by the Commission, petitioner was produced before the learned Commission. On production, an application for bail was filed by the petitioner but said application was dismissed by the learned Commission vide order dtd. 5/8/2025. Thereafter, the petitioner moved second bail application before the Commission, which was also dismissed by the Commission vide impugned order dtd. 4/9/2025 by observing that offence under Sec. 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2019') is a non-bailable offence. Against the rejection of the bail application, petitioner has preferred the present bail application before this Court under Sec. 483 of the BNSS, however, registry of the Court has observed that filing of bail application directly before this Court under Sec. 483 of BNSS against the order passed by the State Commission seems improper.

(3.) This Court requested the Bar to assist the Court on this issue and learned Senior Advocate, Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Mr. Pankaj Gupta and Mr. Shivcharan Gupta graciously assisted the Court on the issue at hand.