Allowed

Ram Jeevan v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2017CRLMB/14819/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by an accused in an IPC cheating and forgery case, ordering release upon furnishing a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

Ram Jeevan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 14819 / 2017

¶3

Ram Jeevan S/o Bhura, R/o Sanwa Ka Bas Gram Panchayat Pachala Police Station Fagi, District Jaipur. (Accused in Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through PP.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ravi Kasliwal For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sudesh Saini,PP

¶9

For Complainant : Mr.Saransh Saini

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Order

¶12

06/11/2017

¶13

Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶14

F.I.R. No.79/2000 was registered at Police Station Fagi, District Jaipur for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C.

¶15

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the FIR is of the year 2000. Initially police submitted negative report. The matter was sent for re-investigation, but the police again submitted negative final report. After submission of negative report a protest petition was filed by the complainant. The Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner and summoned him by arrest warrant. It is contended that in the FIR petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMB-14819/2017]

¶18

Counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the bail application. Their contention is that the petitioner is legal heirs of Bhura son of Lal whereas they have got the property belonging to Bhura son of Shiv Ram mutated in their favour depriving the complainant right to the property.

¶19

Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶20

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶21

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

¶22

teekam/37

Ram Jeevan v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Jeevan 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

Mukesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Roopvati and Ors.

Sonali Secondary School Vs Dalchand

Chetan@Lala Swami Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Chand Bai @ Chandni Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Anil Kumar Soni Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Kamal Singh Vs U O I