Rajasthan High Court
Ajay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Harinarayan ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:22773) on 14 May, 2024
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:22773]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3073/2024
1. Ajay Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Harinarayan Sharma, Aged
About 72 Years, R/o C-83, Shyam Marg Shastri Nagar,
Jaipur.
2. Rameshwar Lal Sharma S/o Shri Salagram Sharma, Aged
About 45 Years, R/o Plot No. 22, Adarsh Vihar, Niwaru
Link Road, Niwaru Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Advocate
assisted by
Mr. Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C. G. Chopra-PP
Mr. Anurag Sharma
Mr. Harsh Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
14/05/2024
1. Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.
276/2017 registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, District Jaipur
(West) for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 467 & 120-B of IPC,
the petitioners have preferred this anticipatory bail application un-
der Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the accused-petitioners submits
that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned
Senior Counsel further submits that the FIR was lodged in the
year 2017, alleging that complainant's brother Mahesh Sharma
and present petitioners, after hatching conspiracy, forged the Will
[2024:RJ-JP:22773] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3073/2024]
by putting forged signatures of complainant's mother. Learned Se-
nior counsel further submits that on the said FIR, Police conducted
investigation and thereafter proposed final report. On the com-
plaint of complainant, the matter was re-opened and thereafter,
Police has reached to the conclusion that the Will was forged. He
further submits that civil litigation between the parties is pending.
Whether the Will is forged or genuine, it is a disputed question of
fact. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the said Will was
examined by the Expert T. S. Kapoor and after examining the Will,
contrary finding was given. The other co-accused Mahesh Sharma
has already been enlarged on regular bail. The custodial interroga-
tion of petitioners is not required, therefore, the anticipatory bail
of accused-petitioners may be allowed.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel
appearing on behalf of complainant vehemently oppose the bail
application.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant argues that petitioners,
in conspiracy with main accused Mahesh Sharma, forged the Will
of complainant's mother and the said Will was filed in a civil suit.
The said Will was examined by Expert and after examining the
documents, it was opined that the signature on the said Will was
forged. Learned counsel further submits that the said Will was
examined by the expert with the undisputed handwriting of
executant. Learned counsel submits that petitioners are
absconding and the learned trial Court has recorded the finding at
para No.7 of its order. Learned counsel for complainant places his
reliance on the judgment passed in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous
[2024:RJ-JP:22773] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3073/2024]
(petition) No.6136/2019 passed in Satish Badaya Vs. State of
Rajasthan and anr decided on 24.02.2021.
5. I have considered the overall allegations levelled in the FIR
and contentions made by the counsel for the parties.
6. It is admitted that FIR was lodged in the year 2017 and
thereafter, petitioners were interrogated and final negative report
was proposed. The matter was again reopened and after
investigation, it was found that the alleged Will was forged. It is
not denied by the petitioners that they have not put their
signatures on the alleged Will. Whether the Will was forged or not,
is a question of fact. The petitioners claim that the Will is genuine,
whereas, complainant alleges that the Will is forged. The matter
pertains to the year 2017. Petitioners have already been
interrogated by the Police and custodial interrogation of petitioners
is not required, therefore, considering the above facts, without
expressing anything on merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just
and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the
accused-petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section
438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest
of the petitioners- Ajay Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Harinarayan
Sharma & Rameshwar Lal Sharma S/o Shri Salagram
Sharma, in connection with FIR No. 276/2017 registered at Police
Station Sadar Jaipur, District Jaipur (West), they shall be released
on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to
the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned
[2024:RJ-JP:22773] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3073/2024]
Police Station on the following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioners shall make themselves
available for interrogation by a police officer as and
when required;
(ii) that the petitioners shall not directly or indi-
rectly make any inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to
the court or any police officer, and
(iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India
without previous permission of the court.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
28-Rahul Joshi
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
