Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shanti Lal And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 28 November, 2017
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 15698 / 2017
1. Shanti Lal S/o Shri Kishori Lal B/c Dhakad, R/o Village
Balakheda P.S. Anta Distt. Baran.
2. Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Kishori Lal B/c Dhakad, R/o Village
Balakheda P.S. Anta Distt. Baran.
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohan Jain Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Gurjar, P.P. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment 28/11/2017 Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.325/2017 registered at Police Station Anta District Baran for offence under Sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the accused had executed two agreements to sell in favour of the complainant. In-fact, complainant had issued a cheque in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of one of the coparcener and the said cheque has been returned to the complainant. It was the case of the complainant that accused had sold the property in question to some other person, but during investigation, statement of Mahaveer, alleged subsequent purchaser, was recorded and he has (2 of 2) [ CRLMB-15697/2017] stated that he has not purchased the land in question. Hence, the dispute between the parties can be said to be purely civil in nature. The land in question is in the name of the accused as per the revenue record. Petitioners are ready to join investigation.
Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the petition.
In the present case, admittedly cheque issued by the complainant in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has already been recovered from the co-accused who was arrested. The said co- accused has been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court. Alleged subsequent purchaser has denied that he has purchased the property in question.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to order the release of the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, petitioners be admitted to bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Petitioners shall join investigation as and when required by the police and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(SABINA)J. S.Kumawat/D-7