Ajab Singh S/O Late Shri Parbhati ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 923 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 193/2020

Ajab Singh S/o Late Shri Parbhati, R/o Village Dahara, Thana
Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Guru Charan Singh Gill, Adv.

(through video conference) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Saini, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Ved Prakash Sogarwal, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

29/01/2021

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 438

Cr. P.C. in connection with FIR No.590/2015 registered at Police

Station Sewar, District Bharatpur for the offence under Sections

420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. FIR is wrongly

lodged against the petitioner. As per provision of 195 Cr. P.C. only

Court can lodged the FIR against the petitioner. Learned counsel

for the petitioner further submitted that a civil suit is pending

against the petitioner and complainant. Learned counsel further

submitted that co-accused-Uday Singh has been enlarged on bail

under Section 439 Cr. P.C. by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. So, the petitioner

be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-193/2020]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon

the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in C. Muniappan & Ors

V/s State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2010 SC 3718. and

M. S. Ahlawat V/s State of Haryana reported in AIR 2000

S. C. 168.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that the petitioner and other person had wrongly served

the notice of revenue suit and got ex-parte decree in their favour.

7. So, looking to the gravity of offence, I am not inclined to

grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner under

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

8. Hence, the criminal misc. bail application stands dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/02

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)