Allowed

Jagdish Prasad Shastri v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC5 Apr 2018CRLMB/3461/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon. Justice Pankaj Bhandari allowed the petitioners anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding an FIR registered in 1996 for cheating and forgery, directing release on personal bond with sureties upon arrest.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed with condition of personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Jagdish Prasad Shastri Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Money Laundering | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 3461/2018

¶3

Jagdish Prasad Shastri S/o Shri Motiram B/c Brahmin, Aged About 54 Years, R/o C-316, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudesh Bansal and Mr. Mohd. Adil For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, P.P. Mr. G.P. Sharma for Complainant

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Order

¶11

05/04/2018

¶12

Petitioner has filed this miscellaneous bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶13

F.I.R. No. 241/1996 was registered at Police Station Jalupura District Jaipur for offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that F.I.R. in this case is of year 1996. Police submitted a Negative Final Report thrice which were accepted by the Court below. Revision Petition was preferred by the complainant in which matter was again reopened for further investigation.

¶15

It is contended that petitioner is a bona fide purchaser who has purchased the property way back in 1998 from Prabhudayal Sharma, in whose favour there was a Patta issued by the Society.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMB-3461/2018]

¶18

It is also contended that co-accused have been given benefit of

¶19

bail by this Court and by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

¶21

have opposed the bail application.

¶22

I have considered the contentions.

¶23

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

¶24

The anticipatory bail application is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Jalupura District Jaipur in F.I.R. No. 241/1996 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions :-

¶25

(i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii). that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶26

(iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous

¶27

permission of the court.

¶28

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶29

Amit/54

Jagdish Prasad Shastri v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad Shastri 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

Nirmala Kumari Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Yogesh Singhal Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rakesh Kumar Bhargawa Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Anil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Asif Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Manpreet Kaur Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp