Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parasmal vs State on 7 April, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4003/2022
1. Parasmal S/o Sh. Thanmal, Aged About 69 Years, B/c
Jain, R/o Ahore, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).
(Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Jalore).
2. Shailesh Jain S/o Sh. Parasmal, Aged About 39 Years, B/c
Jain, R/o Ahore, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).
(Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Jalore).
----Petitioners
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rameshwar Dave
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, P.P.
Mr. Rakesh Arora, complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
07/04/2022
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in judicial custody in
connection with F.I.R. No.139/2020, Police Station Ahore, District
Jalore, registered for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the fact that
document is false was came within the knowledge of complainant
on 17.08.2020 and suit for injunction was filed; that earlier one
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-4003/2022]
power of attorney was executed by complainant in favour of
accused-petitioner on 03.11.2011; that accused-petitioner No.1
and complainant are the real brothers and petitioner No.2 is son of
petitioner No.1; that on the basis of power of attorney dated
03.11.2011, the same was executed in favour of petitioner No.2
by petitioner No.1; that after eight months, one another
agreement to sale was executed between the complainant and
petitioner No.1 and in that agreement to sale, the fact that power
of attorney executed by complainant in favour of accused-
petitioner was mentioned; that written statement was filed by
accused-petitioner in civil suit and in that written statement, the
fact of agreement to sale was mentioned and the same was not
challenged by complainant. It is further stated that in 2011, three
FIRs were filed against the complainant with the allegation that
some of the properties have been sold by the complainant through
agreement to sale; that on the basis of false power of attorney,
there were three FIRs but in regard these FIRs, benefit of bail was
granted to complainant by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is
further stated that the civil suit was filed on 05.08.2020 whereas
present FIR was filed after inordinate delay of twenty days, i.e., on
24.08.2020; that suit for partition along with his prayer of
injunction was also filed against the accused-petitioner. With these
submissions, it is stated that it is pure and simple civil dispute;
that accused-petitioners are behind the bars since 16.03.2022;
that no investigation and recovery is pending against the accused-
petitioners; that further investigation and trial will take sufficiently
long time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the accused
petitioners.
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-4003/2022]
On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned
counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail
application of the accused-petitioners and stated that allegation
against the accused-petitioner is prima facie proved because as
per FSL report, signature of complainant was found mismatch with
the specimen signature it means that forged power of attorney
executed by accused-petitioner in his favour and on the basis of
that power of attorney, sale was executed in favour of petitioner
No.2 by petitioner No.1. It is further stated that earlier one case of
likewise nature is registered against the accused-petitioner and
accused-petitioner was earlier convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act vide judgment
dated 02.03.1977.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly to the fact that petitioner No.1 is 69 years old man
against whom allegation of preparing forged document levelled by
complainant and petitioner No.2 is purchaser and son of petitioner
No.1 but it was not pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor that
for which purpose further custodial interrogation is required; that
further investigation and trial will take sufficiently long time,
therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits
of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application
filed by the petitioners deserves to be accepted.
Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered
that the accused-petitioners - (1) Parasmal S/o Sh. Thanmal, and
(2) Shailesh Jain S/o Sh. Parasmal, arrested in connection with
F.I.R. No.139/2020, Police Station Ahore, District Jalore, shall be
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-4003/2022]
released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of
them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand) and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for
their appearance before that Court on each and every date of
hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of
the trial.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
39-Bharti/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
