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 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Bablu Meena vs State Of Rajasthan Through P P on 11 July, 2017

Author: Pankaj Bhandari

Bench: Pankaj Bhandari

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
                      JAIPUR
      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 9033 / 2017
Bablu Meena S/o Gyarsa Meena B/c Meena, R/o Village Jai
Singhpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur(raj.)
                                                         ----Petitioner
                               Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP
                                                       ----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s)   : Mr. Govind Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, PP
                      Mr. Pawan Sharma for the complainant
_____________________________________________________
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
                        Judgment / Order
11/07/2017

1.    Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C.

2.    F.I.R.   No.245/2017   was     registered   at   Police   Station,

Shivdaspura, Jaipur city, Jaipur for offence under Sections 143,

341, 342, 452, 427, 379 & 384 I.P.C.

3.    It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is joint khatedar of the land in dispute. Petitioner has a

stay order in his favour and a false case has been lodged against

the petitioner to encroach upon petitioner's land.

4.    Counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor

have opposed the bail application.

5. It is contended by the complainant that patta has been issued in their favour by Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) and (2 of 2) [CRLMB-9033/2017] the petitioner has demolished the sample flats which were constructed on the land alloted to the complainant. Photographs of the site has also been shown to the Court.

6. Having considered the contentions of counsel for the complainant, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Anticipatory bail application is, accordingly rejected.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

Arti/25