Prem Prakash Bidyasar vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 42 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15748/2022

Prem Prakash Bidiyasar S/o Gyanendra Singh, Aged About 66 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Vill. Ransisar, Teh. Deedwana Dist. Nagaur.

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sampati Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajendra Prasad Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment / Order

03/01/2023

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the

petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.

103/2017, Police Station Makrana, District Nagaur for the offences

under Section 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present

petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is argued that

the petitioner neither prepared any forged documents of any

person for the purpose of cheating nor he used knowing it to be

forged. It is submitted that the purchaser of the land has only

mentioned address of the present petitioner and petitioner did not

produce any fake persons for the purpose of registration. It is

argued that a revenue suit with regard to the land in question was

filed by purchasers before the court of Assistant Collector,

(2 of 5) [CRLMB-15748/2022]

Makrana for correction of entries in the revenue records which was

withdrawn and the complainant in order to grab the said piece of

land has filed the present FIR whereas, the complainant has no

locus standi to file the present FIR, therefore, in these

circumstances the anticipatory bail should be granted to the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on

the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharth Vs.

State of UP & anr. reported in (2021) 3 CriLR 1153 and order

dated 18.12.2014 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 53

of 2015 'Habeeb Khan Vs. State of Raj.'

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the

complainant argued that the present petitioner is the main

accused who bought the land belonging to Scheduled caste

category person by creating dummy purchasers and thereafter got

sanctioned mining lease in favour of his father and later on in

favour of his wife and received unlawful gains. The role of

petitioner is clear from the affidavits filed on behalf of alleged

purchasers Shivlal and Raju Ram in the revenue suit who were

identified by present petitioner Prem Prakash Bidiyasar. It is

argued that it is a clear case of fraud and deceit which is writ large

from the documents on record. Therefore, at this stage, no case

for grant of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone

through the material on record.

The allegation against the present petitioner is that he

purchased land through dummy purchasers Shiv lal, Raju and

Hanuta Ram and got sanctioned mining lease in favour of his

(3 of 5) [CRLMB-15748/2022]

father Gyanendra Singh and thereafter in favour of his wife Smt.

Pushpa. Later on, upon cancellation of mining lease, in order to

grab the land, prepared forged documents of purchasers and filed

a suit for correction in the revenue record. The contention of the

petitioner is that petitioner neither prepared any forged

documents of any person for the purpose of cheating nor he used

knowing it to be forged. However, the police upon investigation

has found that the so called purchasers of land viz Shiv lal, Raju

Ram and Hanuta Ram were never in existence and it is the

petitioner who created these purchasers by forging documents

and at the time of filing of suit, submitted fake Aadhar Card of

Shiv lal and Raju Ram and claimed Raju Ram to have died. The

police in its investigation has found that the address mentioned in

the Aadhar card of Shiv lal was in fact, that of petitioner. Thus,

the original persons, who supposedly bought the land belonging to

scheduled caste person, are not in existence and prima-facie the

investigation points out that in the garb of such non-

existing persons, shadow persons were created and transfer,

which was otherwise illegal, was projected as legal by creating

such shadow persons. Thus, from the perusal of the FIR so also

the case diary, a prima facie case under Section 420, 467, 468,

471 120B IPC is proved against the petitioner and looking to the

nature of offence, custodial investigation is very much essential.

The petitioner had filed criminal petition before this court being

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2897/2017 wherein, initially, an

interim order not to arrest the petitioner was passed in his favour,

however, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after taking into

consideration the entire aspect of the matter, dismissed the said

petition vide order dated 15.09.2022. Moreover, four other

(4 of 5) [CRLMB-15748/2022]

criminal cases of similar nature have also been registered against

the present petitioner.

So far as the citations referred to by the counsel for

petitioner is concerned, in the case of Siddharth (Supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court had ordered the accused to be released on bail

as the investigation was complete and he was roped in after seven

years of registration of the FIR, which is not the case in hand. In

the case of Habeeb Khan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has only

granted time to the accused to surrender before the appropriate

Court. Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has observed

that the Court must keep in mind that person seeking relief of

anticipatory bail continues to be a man presumed to be innocent.

The power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is somewhat

extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where

it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where

there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of

an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty. It is also

well settled that arrest is a part of the process of investigation

intended to secure several purposes and it may be necessary to

curtail the freedom of an accused in order to enable the

investigation to proceed without hindrance and prevent the

disappearance of the accused.

In the case in hand, the collected oral and documentary

evidence prima facie shows involvement of the petitioner in the

deep rooted conspiracy with other co-accused persons. A strong

prima facie case is available against the petitioner for committing

fraud and forgery. When investigation is still going on, it would not

be proper at this stage to release the applicant on pre-arrest bail.

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-15748/2022]

In view of the foregoing, the bail application preferred by the

petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

However, the petitioner is permitted to surrender before the trial

court within a period of 15 days from today and file an application

for bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C and it is expected from the trial

court that the bail application will be decided as far as possible on

the same day.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 180-BJSH/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)