Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Case brief
What is this about?
This order rejects an anticipatory bail application. The High Court declined bail after police investigation found the petitioner's documents suspicious, concluding the offence involved forgery and that custodial interrogation was necessary.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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 AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3880/2019
Mohan Singh S/o Shri Daan Singh, Aged About 65 Years, B/c Rajput , R/o Village Gordiya , Presently R/o Madhuban Colony , Barmer Kotwali P.s. Barmer
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.Ray Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, P.P. Mr. Arun Kumar, for the complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
16/07/2019
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No.38/2018 of Police Station Kotwali, District Barmer for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 420, 467. 468. 471 of IPC.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of cheating and forgery regarding land possession.
Whether the prima facie belief that the petitioner's documentary evidence is forged warrants denial of bail.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary given the nature of the accusation.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Mohan Singh
- respondent
State Of Rajasthan
Coram
VIJAY BISHNOI
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLMB/3880/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court