The High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner had been accused of cheating and forgery regarding a property sale. The court found the allegations serious and rejected the grounds for bail.
Petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 8055/2018
Jagdish Prasad Agarwal S/o Bodulal Agarwal , Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Gadoda, Tehsil Lakshmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.) At Present Deekam, District Dibrugarh Assam
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshat Chaudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Gurjar, P.P. For Complainant : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
13/08/2018
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 451/2017 registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Distt. Sikar for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that original owner Dilip Kumar Agarwal had executed agreement to sell of the plot in question in favour of Sanwarmal on 22.01.2013. Petitioner had purchased the plot in question by way of registered sale deed from Sanwarmal.
Learned State counsel who is assisted by learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand has opposed the petition and has submitted that infact, Dilip Kumar Agarwal original owner of
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-8055/2018]
the property in question had executed agreement to sell in favour of the complainant on 21.11.2015. Complainant was handed over the possession of the property in question. Petitioner could not have purchased the property in question from Sanwarmal on the basis of agreement to sell executed in his favour. Infact, agreement to sell dated 22.01.2013 is a forged and a fabricated document and has been prepared to defeat the rights of the complainant.
Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioner, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to him is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
Sudha/37
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable in the present FIR involving serious allegations of forgery and cheating.
Whether the nature of allegations and seriousness of charges preclude the grant of bail before charge.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagdish Prasad Agarwal
State Of Rajasthan
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
