Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Subhash Lalwani And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan Through P P on 12 July, 2017
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 9155 / 2017
1. Subhash Lalwani S/o Lt. Sh. Girdhari Lal, Aged About 69 Years,
R/o 171, Kariyappa Marg, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-62.
2. Smt. Shakuntla Lalwani W/o Subhash Lalwani, Aged About 63
Years, R/o 171, Kariyappa Marg, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-62.
3. Bhagwan Dass S/o Sh. Kishan Chand, Aged About 78 Years, R/o
B-4-16, Near Mahaveer Temple, Ward No.21, Rajpura, Patiyala,
Punjab-140401.
Accused--Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, P.P. for State
For Complainant(s): Mr. Narender Kumar Sethi present in person _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 12/07/2017
1. Petitioners have filed this miscellaneous bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No. 141/2013 was registered at Police Station Vishwakarma, Jaipur (North) for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120-B of I.P.C.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the complainant herein initially filed an F.I.R. in the year 1999. The police submitted a negative final report. A protest petition was (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9155/2017] filed by the complainant and the Court has taken cognizance on 18.06.2013. It is contended that complainant has filed the present second F.I.R on similar facts and only the employees of RIICO and Bank have been made accused in this case.
4. It is contended by the complainant that the land was allotted to the petitioner by RIICO in the year 1985. Petitioners are proprietor of M/S Anupam Industries a factory running in the premises. Later on Anupam Lubricants Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated and the factory was given on rent from August 1994 till 1995 to M/S Anupam Lubricants Ltd.
5. It is contended that the M.O.U was executed between the petitioners and the complainant in the year 1995 but one of the Director Mr. Bhandari did not pay the amount assessed for his share. It is also contended that forged stamp paper has been produced by the petitioners to grab the land of the complainant. It is contended that the police has initially submitted a negative final report.
6. I have considered the contentions. The complainant in earlier F.I.R. filed a protest petition and cognizance was taken in June 2013. None of the events in the present F.I.R. is after the date of cognizance by the Court. The present F.I.R. is repetition of fact except of impleading the employees of RIICO and Bank as accused in this case.
7. Considering the entire facts of the case as also the fact that no purpose would be served in arresting the petitioners, I deem it proper to allow the anticipatory bail application.
8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. The (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9155/2017] S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Vishwakarma, Jaipur (North) in F.I.R. No. 141/2013 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners they shall be released on bail, provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to their satisfaction on the following conditions :-
(i). that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and
(iii). that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.
Amit/28