Krishna Devi W/O Shri Musaddilal ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 4111 Raj/2

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
                         4489/2021

Krishna Devi W/o Shri Musaddilal Yadav, Aged About 64 Years,
R/o Plot No-121, Gayatri Nagar-A, Durgapura, Police Thana
Shiprapath, Jaipur District (Rajasthan)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                  ----Respondent

Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5372/2021 Suresh Sharma S/o Sh. Chittarmal Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Vill. Mundiyaramsar Sirsi Road Jaipur Raj.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pratyush Choudhary for Mr. Deepak Chauhan Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order

27/08/2021

1. Petitioners have filed these anticipatory bail applications

under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.203/2020 was registered at Police Station Ashok

Nagar, South Jaipur for offence under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B

of I.P.C.

3. It is contended by counsels for the petitioners that

petitioner-Krishna Devi is a female aged 64 years. She has

appeared before the Investigating Officer as per the direction of

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-4489/2021]

the Court. It is also contended that the agreements on the basis of

which the present FIR has been lodged were executed way back

on 04.02.2013, 21.05.2013 and 19.12.2013, between the present

petitioners and the complainant. It is further contended that there

is an inordinate delay of about seven years in lodging of FIR and

even the suit for specific performance for recovery of amount

would be time barred. It is also contended that in agreement

dated 19.12.2013 it was specifically mentioned that the first party

i.e. the petitioner shall within three months settle all the disputes

and should get the proceedings of Secton 90-A of Rajasthan Land

Revenue Act completed and if she fails to do so, the complainant

would be free to recover the entire amount which was advanced

as sale consideration alongwith interest and costs and that the

petitioner would not have any objection to the same. It is It is

further contended that no suit for recovery of amount or for

specific performance was filed by the complainant.

4. Counsel for the Suresh Sharma contends that he is a broker

and when the agreements were executed in the year 2013, a sum

of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid to him as brokerage.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application. It is

argued that bail to the son of petitioner, Manish Yadav was

granted by this Court after he was arrested and remained in

judicial custody for a substantial period. It is also contended that

when the bail application of Manish Yadav was being argued, it

was stated before the Court that the property belongs to the

present petitioner and whatever agreements have been entered,

were entered into between the present petitioner and

(3 of 4) [CRLMB-4489/2021]

complainant. It is further contended that the petitioners entered

into another agreement to sale with Gokul Kripa Builders in the

year 2018 and a complaint has been lodged by Rajesh Kumar

Verma alleging therein that a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs has been taken

by Manish Yadav and that he and the present petitioners have

commited the offence of cheating with him. It is also contended

that the statement of Rajesh Kumar Verma has been recorded

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the present case in which he has

narrated the above fact. With regard to the delay in filing the FIR,

it is contended that the complainant was arrested in some other

case pertaining to bank scam in March, 2016 and has been

recently enlarged on bail on account of health grounds. It is

further contended that petitioner has ducked the complainant to

the tune of Rs. 12 crore 53 lakhs and is not entitled to the benefit

of anticipatory bail.

6. I have considered the contentions and have carefully perused

the record. As far as the documents are concerned, it is the

admitted position that three agreements were entered into

between the parties dated 04.02.2013, 21.05.20132 and

19.12.2013. There was litigation and disputes pending between

the parties also finds place in the agreement. In the last

agreement dated 19.12.2013 it was specifically mentioned that it

would be the duty of the petitioner to settle all the disputes and

get the proceedings of Section 90-A of Rajasthan Land Revenue

Act completed within three months and in absence thereof,

complainant would be free to claim the amount paid by him as

sale consideration alongwith interest and the costs. Complainant

has not filed any suit for specific performance or any claim for

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-4489/2021]

recovery of the amount in the intervening period and has lodged

the present FIR on 23.09.2020 alleging therein that a fresh

agreement has been entered into by the petitioner, her husband

and her son. I am of the considered view that the present FIR has

been lodged after an inordinate delay, petitioner-Krishna Devi

aged 64 years is a female and petitioner-Suresh Sharma is only a

broker. No custodial interrogation is required for both the

petitioners.

7. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

petitioners and the above noted facts, I deem it proper to allow

these anticipatory bail applications.

8. These anticipatory bail applications aer allowed. The

S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Ashok Nagar, South

Jaipur in F.I.R. No. 203/2020 is directed that in the event of arrest

of the petitioner he shall be released on bail, provided he

furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One Lac only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

Fifty Thousand only) each to his 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 him 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.

9. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /5-6

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)