Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Vidhani @ Omprakash Vidhani vs State Of Rajastahn (2023:Rj-Jd:42025) on 2 December, 2023
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2023:RJ-JD:42025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13146/2023
Om Vidhani @ Omprakash Vidhani S/o Nanakram Vidhani, Aged
About 55 Years, R/o 37-B Ummed Club Road, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajastahn, Through Pp
2. Mahendra Bohra S/o Shivshankar Bohra, R/o Sai
Apartment Bhud Len, Malad West Mumbai At Present
Bohra Bulding Mahatma Gandhi Hospital Road, Jodhpur
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13149/2023
Om Vidhani @ Omprakash Vidhani S/o Nanakram Vidhani, Aged
About 55 Years, R/o 37-B, Ummed Club Road, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajastahn, Through Pp
2. Mahendra Bohra S/o Shivshankar Bohra, R/o Sai
Aprtment Gotum Bhudh Len, Malad West Mumbai At
Present Bohra Bulding Mahatma Gandhi Hospital Road,
Jodhpur
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13152/2023
Om Vidhani @ Omprakash Vidhani S/o Nanakram Vidhani, Aged
About 55 Years, R/o 37-B, Ummed Club Road, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajastahn, Through Pp
2. Mahendra Bohra S/o Shivshankar Bohra, R/o Sai
Aprtment Gotum Bhudh Len, Malad West Mumbai At
Present Bohra Bulding Mahatma Gandhi Hospital Road,
Jodhpur
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13153/2023
Om Vidhani @ Omprakash Vidhani S/o Nanakram Vidhani, Aged
About 55 Years, R/o 37-B, Ummed Club Road, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 05/12/2023 at 08:41:16 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:42025] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-13146/2023]
Versus
1. State Of Rajastahn, Through Pp
2. Mahendra Bohra S/o Shivshankar Bohra, R/o Sai
Aprtment Gotum Bhudh Len, Malad West Mumbai At
Present Bohra Bulding Mahatma Gandhi Hospital Road,
Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Puri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary - PP
Mr. Mahesh Thanvi for complainant
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma - I.O.
present in person
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order 02/12/2023 These applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR Nos. 101/2022, 98/2022, 100/2022, 99/2022 registered at Police Station Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the complainant inspite of filing FR by the police has filed protest petition before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur, in which, his statement was recorded on 16.03.2010. He submits that complainant Mahendra Bohra and Kishore Ranga are relatives and after receiving the final amount of consideration have filed the cases against the petitioner just to harass and blackmail the petitioner. He submits that in the notice issued under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer it is (Downloaded on 05/12/2023 at 08:41:16 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42025] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-13146/2023] mentioned that the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 120- B IPC are found to be proved, whereas, prima facie there is no evidence against the petitioner to prosecute the matter. The anticipatory bail applications of the petitioner may be allowed.
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 vehemently oppose the grant of bail applications.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The investigation so far conducted has disclosed that the accused petitioner Om Vidhani alias Om Prakash has forged the power of attorney in the name of Mahendra Bohra and further executed a sale deed of Plot No.125 in favour of Bhagvan Singh. It is also disclosed in the investigation that similarly the accused petitioner has fabricated the power of attorney of Plot No.124 in the name of Nirmala Purohit and later on sold it to Sajjan Singh, which has already been sold to some Tara Bohra. Similarly Plot No.126 was sold to Mahendra Bohra by Sundari & Naresh. The accused petitioner after fabricating the power of attorney of Mahendra Bohra sold that property to Rajni Dahiya and further that property has been sold by Rajni Dahiya to Revant Singh. Complainant Mahendra Bohra in his statement, rendered under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has specifically stated that he has not given any power of attorney to the present petitioner. He is the owner of Plot Nos. 125 and 126.
Thus, from the above facts, prima facie it appears that the accused petitioner is involved in fabricating the power of attorney and has caused wrongful loss to the original owners of aforesaid (Downloaded on 05/12/2023 at 08:41:16 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42025] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-13146/2023] plots and himself has gained wrongful profit by fabricating and forging the power of attorney.
This Court vide order dated 07.11.2023 directed the present petition to handover the original power of attorney or its copy to the Investigating Officer.
The Investigating Officer present in the Court stated that the accused petitioner has only submitted a copy of the power or attorney and has not submitted original power of attorney.
The so called purchasers Rajni Dahiya, Sajjan Singh, Narpat Singh and Revant Singh have stated that they do not have original power of attorney. Thus, prima facie, the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer clearly shows that petitioner is actually involved in fabricating the forged power of attorney and on that forged power of attorney he further sold the plots to other persons knowingly the fact that power of attorney was never executed by plot owners. For further investigation and for confirming the allegations regarding fabricating and forging power of attorney, the recovery of all the original power of attorney is needful and custodial investigation of present petitioner is required. It does not appear that the present petitioner has falsely been involved in the cognizable offence, therefore, the anticipatory bail applications preferred by the present petitioner deserve dismissal.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal misc. anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are dismissed.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J 123to126-AK Chouhan/-
(Downloaded on 05/12/2023 at 08:41:16 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)