Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Prabhudayal Sharma S/O Shri Narayan vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 May, 2022
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5198/2022
1. Prabhudayal Sharma S/o Shri Narayan, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Plot No. 32, Gulab Nagar, Golyawas,
Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Narayan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Chhitar, R/o Plot No. 32,
Gulab Nagar, Golyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. R. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahla, PP.
Mr. Vijendra Yadav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
05/05/2022
1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.164/2022 registered
at Police Station Malpuragate, Jaipur (East) for the offence(s)
under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have
been wrongly implicated in this case. Case pertains to civil nature
because cheque given by the petitioner was dishonored and
complainant lodged the present FIR to give criminal color to it. So,
petitioners be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
respondent have opposed the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners and submitted that petitioner had taken
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:08:58 PM)
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-5198/2022]
jewelry of Rs.36,60,566/- and gave Cheque No.034608 dated
24.02.2022 that was non-CTS. Learned counsel for the respondent
also submitted that the cheque was valid because non-CTS cheque could not be honored by the bank. So, petitioners had cheated the complainant. So, looking to the gravity of offence, bail application be dismissed.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. It is admitted position that the petitioners had given the non-CTS cheque to the complainant on account of purchasing of jewelry of Rs.36,60,566/-. Petitioners very well know that non- CTS cheque would not be honored.
5. In my considered opinion, petitioners had cheated the complainant by giving the non-CTS cheque. So, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge them on bail.
6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Seema/116 (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:08:58 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)