Oma Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6576 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 421/2021

Oma Ram S/o Sh. Narain Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Khokhariya, Banar Police Station, Jodhpur, Dist. Jodhpur Metro.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 357/2021 Oma Ram S/o Sh. Narain Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Khokhariya, Banar Police Station, Jodhpur, Dist. Jodhpur Metro.

----Petitioner Versus State, Through Pp

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 422/2021 Oma Ram S/o Shri Narain Ram, Aged About 52 Years, Kjhokhariya, Banar Police Station, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur Metro.

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

                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. B Ray Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. AR Choudhary, PP
                               Mr. Durgaram, ASI, P.S. Banar,
                               Jodhpur, present in person.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

04/03/2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on

record.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR

Nos. 161/2020, 157/2020 and 152/2020 of Police Station Banar,

Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467,

468, 471, 472, 120-B, 447, 448, 427, 500, 501 IPC. He has

preferred these anticipatory bail applications under Section 438

Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he sold a

piece of land in the form of plots to the complainant party and the

complainant party constructed a boundary wall on the said plots.

However, later on, the other co-accused persons namely

Chandraprakash Soni and Hemraj Soni entered into the said plots

and destroyed the boundary wall and when the complainant party

confronted Chandraprakash Soni and Hemraj Soni, they told the

complainant party that they had purchased the said plots through

a registered sale deed in the year, 2006 from the petitioner. The

complainants have filed the aforementioned FIRs alleging that the

petitioner has sold the disputed plots to them, which he had

already sold to some other persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has sold the disputed plots to the complainants, out of

the land, which is khatedari land of the petitioner and his family

members. It is submitted that co-accused persons

Chandraprakash Soni and Hemraj Soni had tried to dispossess the

complainants from the said plots and for that, the petitioner

cannot be blamed. It is argued that the petitioner has not

committed any cheating with the complainants as he sold the

disputed plots from his khatedari land to them in the year, 2008

and since then complainants are in possession of the same and

their names are also in the revenue records. It is further

submitted that the petitioner may be granted benefit of

anticipatory bail in connection with the above referred FIRs.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

The Investigating Officer- Durgaram, present in person along with

case diaries of the aforesaid FIRs has submitted that the petitioner

and his family members were having twelve bighas of land in their

names in the revenue records and in the year 2006 they sold the

said twelve bighas of land while bifurcating the same in different

plots to various persons. After selling the said land, no other land

was left with the petitioner but in the year, 2008, he sold some of

the lands of river bank claiming that the said land is khatedari

land of him and his family members. The Investigating Officer has,

therefore, submitted that so far, the police have found that the

petitioner has sold the land to the complainant party, which does

not belong to him or his family members, and as such, he has

committed cheating and forgery with the complainant party.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the case and after going through the case diaries, without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined

to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the

petitioner.

Accordingly, all these applications preferred by the petitioner

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are rejected.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Surabhii/93-94-95-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)