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 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Basta Ram vs State on 15 October, 2019

Author: Vijay Bishnoi

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11799/2019

1.       Basta Ram S/o Shri Jetha Ram, Aged About 75 Years,
         Village Soyla, Tehsil Bawari, District Jodhpur.
2.       Surja Ram S/o Shri Jetha Ram, Aged About 62 Years,
         Village Soyla, Tehsil Bawari, District Jodhpur.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
State, Through P.p.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Deepak Bishnoi

For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, PP




             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order 15/10/2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No.181/2019 of Police Station Khedapa, Distt. Jodhpur Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complainant, in her complaint, has alleged that the petitioners along with other co-accused persons got the mutation sanctioned in their name in the year 1978 and, thereafter, while showing her father dead, unmarried and (Downloaded on 15/10/2019 at 08:31:10 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11799/2019] issue-less obtained his forged death certificate dated 10.3.2018. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, brother of the petitioners namely Chaina Ram died way back in the year 1978 and after his death, mutation was sanctioned in the name of the petitioners and their other brothers. It is submitted that at the time of sanction of mutation in the year 1978, the complainant was not even born. It is also submitted that the complainant has already filed a revenue suit for declaration, claiming herself as 'khatedar' of the lands in question and the said suit is pending since 2018 in the revenue court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the rights of the parties over the lands in question have to be decided in the revenue suit, however, just to pressurize the petitioners, this false FIR has been lodged against them by the complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioners are old aged persons and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation. It is, thus, prayed that the petitioners may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, after going through the case diary, taking into consideration the fact that the mutation questioned by the complainant was sanctioned way back in the year 1978; revenue suit between the parties is going on (Downloaded on 15/10/2019 at 08:31:10 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11799/2019] and keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are old aged persons, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners - (1) Basta Ram S/o Shri Jetha Ram and (2) Surja Ram S/o Shri Jetha Ram in connection with FIR No.181/2019 of Police Station Khedapa, Distt. Jodhpur Rural, they shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:-

                                          (i)    that   the   petitioner(s)    shall make
                                          himself/herself/themselves       available   for

interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner(s) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and

(iii) that the petitioner(s) shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 81-msrathore/-

(Downloaded on 15/10/2019 at 08:31:10 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)