Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Meghraj S/O Korya B/C Prajapat vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 26 November, 2018

Author: Pankaj Bhandari

Bench: Pankaj Bhandari

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

         S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 14895/2018

1.         Meghraj S/o Korya B/c Prajapat, R/o Basovkalan, Police
           Station Malarnadungar, Distt. Sawaimadhopur (At Present
           Confined In Sawaimadhopur )
2.         Hansraj S/o Korya B/c Prajapat, R/o Basovkalan, Police
           Station Malarnadungar, Distt. Sawaimadhopur (At Present
           Confined In Sawaimadhopur )
                                                        ----Petitioners
                                  Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj.
                                                       ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 26/11/2018

1. Petitioners have filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.321/2018 was registered at Police Station Mantown, Sawaimadhoput for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 471 of I.P.C.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the earlier F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioners. Present F.I.R. has been lodged after thirty five days of lodging of the F.I.R. by the petitioners. As per the F.I.R., the allegation is that petitioners have received Rs.1,80,000/- and agreed to sell their property. It is contended that the allegation is that Rs.1,80,000/- was given in cash.

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-14895/2018]

4. It is also contended that there is restriction of giving cash amount of more than Rs.20,000/-. Fake agreement to sale has been prepared by the complainant on the documents which were kept by the petitioners as petitioners were working with the complainant.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

6. I have considered the contentions.

7. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioners, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

8. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused petitioners shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J Arti/163 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)