Ratan Lal Choudhary Son Of ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3093 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
                               10007/2021

Ratan Lal Choudhary Son Of Surajbhan Choudhary, Aged About
36 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 148, Balaji Vihar-4, Govindpura,
Jhotwara, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta present in the Court For Complainant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma through VC For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

23/07/2021

1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.159/2021 was registered at Police Station,

Jhotwara, Jaipur City (West) for offence under Sections 420, 406,

384, 467, 468, 471, 477 I.P.C.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that as per

the allegation in the F.I.R., the agreement was executed between

the complainant and the petitioner way back in the year 2014. For

exchange of plots, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was given to the

petitioner. As per the F.I.R. this agreement was cancelled,

however, date of cancellation of agreement is not mentioned in the

F.I.R. It is mentioned that petitioner agreed to pay a sum of

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-10007/2021]

Rs.23,40,000/- to the complainant and gave a cheque of

Rs.3,40,000/-. It is also contended that the agreement stands

cancelled. There is no agreement to the effect that petitioner

would pay a cheque of Rs.23,40,000/-. It is further contended that

the cheque was misused by the complainant. The account from

which the cheque was issued itself was closed in the year 2015.

There was no possibility of giving a cheque in the year 2020. It is

also contended that prior to the present F.I.R., one F.I.R.

No.55/2019 was lodged by the petitioner against the complainant.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the bail application. It is contended that petitioner

tried to exchange the property, which originally belongs to one

Ajeet Kumar Jaju. It is also contended that an agreement was

cancelled, as petitioner was not the owner of the plot which he

wanted to exchange. It is further contended that an oral

agreement was entered into between the parties to the effect that

petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.23,40,000/-.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Taking note of the fact that the agreement is of the year

2014, no date is mentioned in the F.I.R. when agreement was

cancelled, there is no written document that petitioner would

refund the sum of Rs.23,40,000/- and no purpose would be

served in arresting the petitioner, hence I deem it proper to allow

the anticipatory bail application.

7. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. The

S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur City

(West) in F.I.R. No. 159/2021 is directed that in the event of arrest of the

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-10007/2021]

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)

together 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 petitioner shall make himself available for

interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the petitioner 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 petitioner shall not leave India without previous

permission of the Court.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /36

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)