Dismissed

Prabhu Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2017CRLMB/13772/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed bail applications filed by two accused alleged of cheating and forgery. The court held that despite the civil dispute nature of the underlying matter, the bail applications were rejected due to concealment of facts by the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications rejected; petitioners may file fresh application after charge-sheet.

Prabhu Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 13771 / 2017

¶3

Kishan Sharma S/o Shri Prabhulal Sharma B/c Brahimain, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Plot No.516-D, Krishi Nagar, Toll Tax, Sanganer, P/S Sadar Sanganer, Jaipur, Raj. (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through PP.

¶7

----Respondent Connected With

¶8

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 13772 / 2017 Prabhu Lal Sharma son of Shri Ramsahai sharma, aged 60, By Caste-Brahmain, Residence of Plot No.516-D, Krishi Nagar, Toll Tax, Sanganer, P/S Sadar sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

(at present confined at Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Pp ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Tailor

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP

¶11

Mr. Mahendra Sharma

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶13

Judgment / Order

¶14

07/11/2017

¶15

Petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶16

F.I.R. No.284/2017 was registered at Police Station Sadar Sanganer for offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of I.P.C.

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CRLMB-13771/2017]

¶19

It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the matter is more of a civil dispute. The complainant did not pay balance amount on which a notice was sent for paying balance sale consideration.

¶20

Counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the bail application. Their contention is that the petitioners concealed the fact that the house was mortgaged with the bank.

¶21

It is also contended that the petitioners have taken around Rs.12,00,000/- from the complainant and instead of getting the sale deed registered have now again taken loan. It is also contended that the matter is still at the stage of investigation.

¶22

I have considered the contentions.

¶23

Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the State, I am not inclined to allow the bail applications. The same is, accordingly, rejected.

¶24

However, petitioners would be free to file fresh bail application after filing of the charge-sheet.

¶25

A copy of this order be placed in connected file.

¶26

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

¶27

Arti/32-33

Prabhu Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu Lal Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Chand Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Bajaj Allianze General Insuran Vs Shafi Mohammad and Ors.

Ramji Lal Rana Vs Principal Secretary Dep Edu Ors.

Ravindra Singh@Dabbu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sayed Nadeem Ali Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Arun Kumar Sharma Vs R R v P N Ltd. and Ors.