High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC against petitioners accused of property-related offences under the IPC. The bench held that their familial relationship with Sitaram negated bona fide purchaser status.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 2 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.5505/2018
Both R/o Village Chharsa, Tehsil Shahpura, Police Station Manoharpura, District Tonk.
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
----Respondent
__________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal For Respondent : Mr. R.S. Raghav, P.P. For Complainant : Ms. Shashi Sharma
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
24/08/2018
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 71/2018 registered at Police Station Bani Park, District Jaipur for offence under Sections 380, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had purchased the property-in-question from Sitaram. Petitioners can be said to be bona fide purchaser. Petitioners are ready to join investigation.
Learned state counsel who is assisted by the counsel for the complainant, has opposed the petition and has submitted that Sitaram by preparing a forged power of attorney has
(2 of 2 )
sold the property belonging to his brother-complainant to his wife Manju Devi and sister-in-law (wife of younger brother) Krishna Devi W/o Sardarmal.
Thus, in the present case, prosecution story in brief is that the Sitaram by preparing a forged power of attorney has sold the property belonging to his brother-complainant to the petitioners. Petitioners are none other than the wife of Sitaram and sister-in-law of Sitaram. Petitioners are real sisters and are married to two real brothers. Complainant is the brother of the Sitaram and Sardarmal. Keeping in view the relationship of the petitioners with Sitaram, it cannot be said that the petitioners are bona fide purchaser for consideration.
Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to them is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
Mohita/48
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC can be granted when petitioners lack bona fide status due to familial relationship in property forgery allegations.
Whether the relationship between petitioners and Sitaram precludes them from being bona fide purchasers.
Whether the seriousness of forgery charges precludes anticipatory bail in the present case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Manju Devi W/o Sita Ram Yadav
Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Sardar Mal Yadav
State of Rajasthan
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
