Rajendra @ Raju S/O Shri Baluram ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2162 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
                            14589/2020
Rajendra @ Raju S/o Shri Baluram Alias Lala, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Jodhawas Ps Thanagaji Dist. Alwar At Present In
Central Jail Alwar
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                        ----Respondent

Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1322/2021 Sundarlal S/o Baluram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Jodhawas Ps Thanagazi Dist. Alwar Raj. (At Present In Central Jail Alwar)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

                                                                        ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Amit Jindal with Mr. Siya Ram
                                  Sharma
For State                   :     Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 05/03/2021

1. Petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section

439 Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.101/2018 was registered at Police Station

Thanagaji, District alwar for offence under Sections 420 & 406

I.P.C.

3. It is contended by counsels for the petitioners that the

agreement to sale was entered into between the petitioners and

complainant. It was agreed that the property would be registered

on 31.01.2018, thereafter, the time was extended till 30.04.2018.

Since the complainant did not pay the balance amount, as per the

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-14589/2020]

terms of the agreement, the amount was forfeited and the

property was sold on 17.05.2018. It is also contended that fake

receipt was prepared by the complainant dated 10.05.2018. It is

further contended that as per this document, Rs. 7,30,000/- was

given in cash. It is contended that the receipt dated 10.05.2018

was forged receipt as it does not bear the signatures of all the six

sellers. It is also contended that whenever the time was extended,

it was extended by six sellers. It is further contended that

petitioners have remained in custody since November, 2020.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed these bail

applications.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

petitioners, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications.

7. These bail applications are, accordingly, allowed and it is

directed that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail

provided each of them 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 trial Court with the stipulation that they shall

appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter be

transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when

called upon to do so.

8. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

NIKHIL KR YADAV / 7-8

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)