Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pankaj vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 December, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13820/2021
Pankaj son of Shri Chananmal, aged about 36 years, Resident of
Ward No.16, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
CONNECTED WITH
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16502/2021
Vikas Lakhera son of Shri Rajkumar, aged about 26 years,
Resident of Ward No.6, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, Distt.
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
(2 of 4)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
13/12/2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
The petitioner(s) apprehend(s) his/her/their arrest in
connection with FIR No.06/2020 of Police Station Nohar,
Distt. Hanumangarh for the offence(s) punishable under
Section(s) 420, 465, 467, 471 & 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the complaint is regarding the alleged patta, said to
have been issued by the Gram Panchayat concerned
around 40 years ago i.e. 20.10.1980. It is further
submitted that allegation of preparation of the forged
patta is not against the petitioners and their role is only
to the effect that when the said patta was produced for
registration authority, they have identified the holder of
the patta. It is further submitted that the patta holder
namely Chananmal has transferred the said patta in the
name of his wife through a gift deed and in that gift
deed, the petitioners stood as witnesses. It is also
submitted that the petitioners have simply identified the
person at the time of registration, in favour of whom, the
alleged patta was issued and the gift deed was executed,
(3 of 4)
otherwise, there is no role of the petitioners in
preparation of the said patta or the gift deed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed
these anticipatory bail applications.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and
proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused
petitioner(s) under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this/these bail application(s) under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. is/are allowed and it is directed that
in the event of arrest of petitioner(s) - Pankaj son of Shri
Chananmal and Vikas Lakhera son of Shri Rajkumar in
connection with FIR No.06/2020 of Police Station Nohar,
Distt. Hanumangarh, 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
(4 of 4)
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
C/2 and C/3 ms rathore
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
