Smt. Vidya Devi Wife Of Shri Hariom ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2488 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
                               4714/2021

1.      Smt. Vidya Devi Wife Of Shri Hariom Saini, Resident Of H-
        94, H Block, Near Gurudwara, New Silampur, Bhajanpura,
        North East, Delhi.
2.      Smt. Chameli Devi Wife Of Shri Ramprasad, Aged About
        74 Years, Resident Of H-94, H Block, Near Gurudwara,
        New Silampur, Bhajanpura, North East, Delhi.
                                                                 ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Choudhary, through VC For Complainant(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, through VC For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

28/06/2021

1. Petitioners have filed this bail application under Section 438

of Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.202/2017 was registered at Police Station, Station

Sadar, Alwar District Alwar for offence under Sections 420, 471,

467, 406, 120-B and 468 I.P.C.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that one of

the petitioners is 74 years old lady. The mutation was opened in

their favour and they have sold the property in accordance with

the mutation.

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-4714/2021]

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the bail application. It is contended that petitioners

entered into a registered release deed with their brothers in

January 2011. Thereafter, the entire property was sold to the

complainant by the brothers by a registered sale deed in 2012.

Subsequently, brothers and sisters connived and got the mutation

entries opened in favour of the sisters on 07.03.2017.

Immediately thereafter, the property was again sold on

18.03.2017 by the sisters and brothers.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Considering the contention put forth by counsel for the State

and counsel for the complainant, I am not inclined to entertain the

anticipatory bail application.

7. The Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /58

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)