Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Anil Wadhwa S/O Shri Atmaram Wadhwa vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 September, 2020
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 10988/2020
Anil Wadhwa S/o Shri Atmaram Wadhwa, Aged About 44 Years,
Resident Of L-17A/5, Dlf Phase-2, Gurgaon, Haryana, Presently
Director Of Divya Aashirvad Properties Private Limited And
Director Jalsa Infrastructure Private Limited Limited, Rajasthan.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail At Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Sahni with Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma through V.C. For State : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP present in Court HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 30/09/2020
1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No.196/2019 was registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur for offence under Sections 420, 406 R/w 120-B I.P.C.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is in custody since August, 2019. Petitioner entered into a Builder Buyer Agreement with the Complainant. Petitioner along with Amit Bansal took up property for development. Various agreements were entered into between the developers and purchasers but due to inter-se dispute, work could not be completed. It is contented (Downloaded on 01/10/2020 at 08:51:34 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-10988/2020] that the First Bail was rejected on the ground that petitioner is involved in money laundering case.
4. It is argued that petitioner has been given benefit of bail in the money laundering case and the only allegation in the said case is that petitioner and his wife took a loan of Rs. 3,24,50,000/- from the main accused. It is also contended that RIICO has given a letter that the constructions are being raised in accordance with the plan and there is no violation of the building by laws. It is also contended that offence is triable by First Class Magistrate.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail application.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application.
8. This second bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J AMIT KUMAR /10 (Downloaded on 01/10/2020 at 08:51:34 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)