Rajasthan High Court
Bharat Singh S/O Shri Arjun Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 June, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 616/2021
Bharat Singh S/o Shri Arjun Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Village Gadhi Khanpur Police Station Khoi District Sikar At
Present Tenant Man Colony Near Megha Mind School Bhiwani
Road, Police Station Tosam Haryana (At Present Central Jail
Jaipur.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman with Mr. R.B.
Sharma, through VC
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja with Mr. Sanjeev
Arora, through VC
For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
28/06/2021
1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section
439 of Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No. 353/2015 was registered at Police Station Shayam
Nagar Jaipur Mahanagar for offence under Sections 420, 467 and
468 of I.P.C.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner
had purchased the plot way back in 1998 and a patta was issued
in his favor in 2015. It is also contended that a suit has been filed
by the complainant challenging the patta issued in favour of the
petitioner, on the ground that complainant is the owner of the
patta of the plot in dispute, since 15th of January, 1987 and that
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-616/2021]
he never sold the plot to Diwan Singh from whom, the petitioner
contends that he has purchased the plot. It is also contended that
charge-sheet has been filed. Conclusion of trial will take time.
Offence is triable by First Class Magistrate.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant
have opposed the bail application. It is contended that petitioner
got the patta issued from J.D.A., on the basis of forged documents
which was thereafter, mortgaged in favour of bank. This came into
notice of the complainant when the petitioner took possession of
the plot. Complainant had filed the FIR way back in August, 2015
and thereafter, petitioner got the patta issued in his favour. It is
further contended that from the charge-sheet, it is apparent that
petitioner has forged documents in order to grab the land
belonging to the complainant.
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. Civil dispute with regard to the property is pending before
the Court. As on date there is patta issued from the authority in
favour of the petitioner. Complainant is also having patta issued in
his favour way back in 1987. The ownership dispute is yet to be
decided by the Civil Court.
7. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the
petitioner and taking note of the fact that the case is triable by
First Class Magistrate and that conclusion of trial will take time, 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
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-616/2021]
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)
