Allowed

Mangniram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2017CRLMB/14565/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Rajasthan High Court allowed anticipatory bail in a fraud case arising from an agreement to sell land, holding the dispute is purely civil in nature as specific performance suit was filed, and it would be just and expedient to release petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners to be released on bail subject to satisfaction of Arresting Officer and conditions regarding investigation and departure.

Mangniram and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶2

ORDER

¶3

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.14565/2016

¶4

Mangniram Son of Shri Rudaram, by Caste Jat,, R/o Village Jaysinghpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (raj.)

¶5

Harbai Wife of Mangniram, by Caste Jat,, R/o Village Jaysinghpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (raj.)

¶6

V/s.

¶7

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶8

Date of Order: January 3, 2017

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

Mr. R.K. Kasana, for the petitioners. Mr. R.R. Baisla, P.P. for the State. Mr. Manish Gupta, for the complainant.

¶11

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.685/2016 registered at Police Station Kotputli, Jaipur Rural, for offences u/S. 420, 406, 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶12

Prosecution story, in brief, is that the petitioners had executed agreement to sell in favour of the complainant on 23.6.2016. Total sale consideration was Rupees ten lacs and Rupees two lacs were paid to the petitioners by the complainant by way of earnest money. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 23.7.2016. It is the case of the prosecution that, although, petitioner had executed agreement to sell in favour of the complainant but had sold the land in question to some other person on 8.11.2016.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the date fixed for execution of the sale deed, complainant had failed to perform his part of the contract. In-fact, the petitioners had issued notice to the complainant to get the sale deed executed after paying balance sale consideration. Since, the complainant failed to perform his part of the contract petitioners sold the land to some other person on 8.11.2016. Petitioners are ready to return the earnest money received by them from the complainant.

¶14

Learned State Counsel, who is assisted by the counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the complainant is not willing to accept the earnest money paid by him to the petitioners and wants the sale deed to be executed in his favour. Learned counsel has further submitted that on 23.7.2016 was Saturday and complainant remained present in the Office of the Sub-Registrar on 25.7.2016. Complainant has also filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. Learned counsel has further submitted that sale deed has been executed by the petitioners in the sum of Rupees three lacs twenty five thousand and the said transaction was fake transaction to frustrate to agreement to sell executed by the petitioners in favour of the complainant.

¶15

In the present case, dispute between the parties appears to be purely of civil nature. Complainant has already resorted to civil remedy by filing civil suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell in question. It will be matter of trial in

¶16

the civil suit as to whether the complainant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract on the date fixed for execution of the sale deed in terms of agreement to sell dated 23.6.2016. it is the case of the petitioners that the complainant had not performed his part of the contact on the date fixed for execution of the sale deed. Moreover, the petitioners in order to show their bona fide have offered to return the earnest money to the complainant, but the complainant has refused to accept the same.

¶17

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to order the release of the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

¶18

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, petitioners be released on bail subject to satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Petitioners shall join investigation as and when required by the police and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶19

(SABINA),J.

¶20

Tanwar/P.A. Item No.8

Mangniram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangniram and Anr. 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

Amar Chand Vs Sharma Clinic

Hem Raj Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Lachho Devi and Ors. Vs Bor and Ors.

Gaurav Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ansar Husain Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Dharmvir Vs U O I and Ors.