Mahendra Kumar S/O Ramgopal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2887 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
                                9554/2021

Mahendra Kumar S/o Ramgopal, R/o Teliyo Ka Mohalla, Kanwas,
Dist. Kota, Rajasthan. ( At Present Confined In District Jail
Kota ).
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor.
                                                                      ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Sharma, through VC For Complainant(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain For State : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

13/07/2021

1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section

439 of Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No. 169/2020 was registered at Police Station

Dadabari, District Kota for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468,

471, 472, 409 and 120-B of I.P.C.

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

contract was given to the petitioner by the complainant. The

matter is of year 2012-2013. It is also contended that the claim

relating to machinery was raised in the first FIR in which police

has submitted a negative final report. It is further contended that

complainant is in a habit of filing FIRs to unnecessary harass the

petitioner. It is contended that Bajranglal also filed a complaint in

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-9554/2021]

which police has submitted a negative final report but Court has

taken cognizance against the complainant. It is contended that

dispute, if any, is of civil nature.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the bail application. It is contended that the

machinery of complainant is lying with the accused Bajranglal.

Complainant is the registered owner of the machinery and would

be responsible, if any, mishap occurs in relation to the machinery.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. As far as the present FIR is concerned which has been lodged

after an inordinate delay, a dispute between the parties is of civil

nature and civil litigation is pending between the parties.

7. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

8. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed

that accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided he

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

One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction

of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear

before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred,

on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to

do so.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /10

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)