Dismissed

Dalbir Singh Rana v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC6 Sept 2016CRLMB/11185/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order dismisses a bail application filed by Dalbir Singh challenging an order of the District Judge, Tijara. The High Court found no merit in the application, upheld the trial court's refusal to grant bail, and granted liberty to file a fresh application post-challan.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Liberty granted to file fresh bail application after filing of challan.

Dalbir Singh Rana Vs State of Rajasthan… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶3

ORDER

¶4

S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPL. NO.11185/2016 (Dalbir Singh Vs. State) DATE OF ORDER ...., ..... .....

¶5

...., ..... ..... 06/09/2016

¶6

-- HON'BLE MR.JUSTIC&MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶7

Mr.RN Mathur, Sr.Adv along with Mr.Prateek Mathur, for the petitioneris.

¶8

Mr.R.S.Stiekhawat, Public Prosecutor for State along with Mr.Jaheer Abbas, SI, PS-Tapukada, Distt. Alwar.

¶9

Mr.,Vinaypal Yadav, for the complainant.

¶10

This bail application has been filed against the order dated 27.8.2016 passed by learned Distt. Judge Cadre, Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Tijara, Distt. Jaipur whereby he has dismissed the bail application.

¶11

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Nityanand S/o Nand Ram lodged the instant FIR No.180/2015 on 16.6.15 against the petitioner for the offences mentioned therein alleging therein that the petitioner has executed an agreement to sale dated 16.10.14 of Khasra n 0.258 Rakba 0.05, 632/266 Rakba 0.95, 635/267 Rakba 0.47 which is 5 bigh and 1.8 biswa, whereby a condition was attached that on the4 above mentioned khasra 335, shops were to be constructed and out of which 275 shops were to be giveo to the complainant and Rs.19,00,000 for each shop was agreed upon, for which the petitioner has received Rs.2,95,00,000/and the remaining amount was to be given on 20.11.2014 at the time of handing over the possession. Upon the said FIR, the police started investigation and arrested the petitioner. The petitioner moved the bail application before the court below but same was Hsmissed vide order dated

¶12

27.8.2016. Hence this bail application has been preferred.

¶13

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the investigation has been completed, the accused petitioner is in judicial custody since long, alleged offences are triable by 1st Class Judl. Magistrate, no cheating has been committed by the accused petitioner, in fact he has rightly sold the land as per agreement entered into between the parties. It is also contended that the trial of the case is likely to take time, hence the petitioner should be released on bail. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that if this court is going to dismiss the bail application, then a liberty may be given to the petitioner to move a fresh bail application before the trial court after filing of challan.

¶14

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the order dated 27.8.2016. Relevant part of the judgme~:~t is reproduced as under:

¶16

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings arrived at by learned court below as quoted herein above, the learned trial court is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter, and has rightly passed the impugned judgment/order. I arn in unison with the findings arrived at by the learned court below. Hence, I do not think it just and proper to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.8.2016 passed by the trial court, and thus the bail application having no force, is hereby dismissed.

¶17

However, a liberty is given to the petitioner to move a fresh bail application before the trial court after filing of challan, as prayed for above by the counsel for the petitioner. '.

¶18

¶19

(- CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

Dalbir Singh Rana v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalbir Singh Rana v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radheshyam Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shribhan and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Uma Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sandeep Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Jitesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Urmila and Others Vs Surendra Kumar and Others