Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Prashant vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 4 January, 2017
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.13726/2016
Prashant S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Khoti
Kuwa, Tilak Nagar, Ward No. 7, Behrod, Distt. Alwar Raj.
V/s.
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
Date of Order: January 4, 2017
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Mr. M.K. Kaushik, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.R. Baisla, P.P. for the State.
Mr. Manish Kumawat, for the complainant.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.605/2016 registered at Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur Mahanagar, Jaipur, for offences u/S. 380 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that some unknown persons had stolen articles lying in the house of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that husband of the complainant had executed agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner on 14.3.2013. Total sale consideration was Rupees seventy seven lacs. Out of the said sale consideration, petitioner had paid Rupees fifty six lacs to the vendor. Later petitioner came to know that the property in question had been mortgaged with the Bank and the vendor had failed to repay the loan to the Bank. In this regard petitioner lodged FIR (Annexure-4) against the husband of the complainant on 18.7.2016. As a counterblast to the said FIR vendor has got lodged the present FIR on 12.9.2016 against the petitioner through his wife. The husband of the petitioner is lodged in jail in connection with corruption case. Petitioner has joined investigation.
Learned State Counsel, who is assisted by counsel for the complainant, on the other hand has, opposed the petition.
Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the husband of the complainant has returned the amount of Rupees fifty six lacs received from the petitioner and the agreement to sell executed between the parties had been cancelled and torn. However, learned counsel for the complainant has failed to show any documentary evidence to the effect that the husband of the complainant had repaid the entire amount of Rupees fifty six lacs received by him from the petitioner.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, petitioner be released on bail subject to satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when required by the police and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(SABINA),J.
Tanwar/-
P.A. Item No.6