Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vakil Singh vs State on 2 January, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
..
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 10683 / 2016.
Vakil Singh S/o Jagraj Singh, Ward No -10 Roda Road, Nokha
District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
Counsel For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Sidhu.
Counsel For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, PP.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Judgment / Order
02/01/2017
BY THE COURT:
This anticipatory bail application has been moved on behalf of the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 623/2015 Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor.
The FIR aforesaid has been registered alleging that the petitioner, while working on the post of Patwari of village Charkada, Tehsil Nokha entered the mutation entries on the basis of allegedly forged death certificates of Chunni Lal and Ram chandra. It has been alleged that their death took place in (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10683/2016] Amarvati (Maharashtra) on 15th September, 1993 and 10 th May, 1982 whereas, the forgd death certificates bearing the date of death of 15th February, 1993 and 6th July, 1993 were prepared on the basis of which, the accused entered the mutation entries.
Learned cousnel for the petitioner submtis that the alleged incident is 20 years old for which the FIR has been lodged in the year 2015. The accused-petitioner has retired in the year 2003. He has made the mutation entries on the basis of the death certificates issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat Charkada which were further verified by the Extension Block Officer. It was primarily the duty of the concerned Gram Panchayat to ensure about the correct facts of death prior to issuing the death certificate. It is no where alleged that the accused-pettioner played any role in farbricating these death certificate rather he has entered the mutation entries in good faith and on the basis of the said certificates. He is not a beneficiary of these mutation entries. He has got no record in his possession which is required to be recovered from him. Thus, learned cousnel for the petitioner prays that the anticipatory bail should be granted to him.
Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer saying that it was the duty of the accused-pettioner in the capacity of Patwari to verify about the correctness of the death certificates which he has failed to perform. He has entered the mutation entries in favour of the unauthorised persons being in collusion with the beneficiaries. Hence, this anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-10683/2016] Taking the rival contentions into consideration and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and also taking into consideration the fact that the FIR has been lodged after a long period of 20 years when the accused-petitoner has retired from the service, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Vakil Singh son of Jagraj Singh in connection with F.I.R. No. 623/2015 Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- 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.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI), J.
/Mohan/9