Allowed

Rohtash Jain v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Aug 2019CRLMB/4809/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a cheating case. The court observed that the petitioner did not borrow the money and considered his old age, directing enlargement on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/each each, subject to standard conditions.

Rohtash Jain Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4809/2019

¶3

Rohtash Jain S/o Ramakrishna Jain, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 1E28 East Punjabi Bag, Bhagwandas Nagar , New Delhi

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Vikram Sharma, P.P.
		Mr. Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, for the
		complainant

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Order

¶11

27/08/2019

¶12

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No.137/2018 of Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC. He has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the complainant initially co-accused Abhinav Aggarwal, who happened to be the son-in-law of the petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs. 10 lacs from the complainant and later on, when the said amount was not paid, an FIR was lodged by the complainant against son-in-law of the petitioner. It is submitted that during the investigation into the said FIR, the petitioner and other persons intervened into the matter and on the assurance

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMB-4809/2019]

¶16

given by son-in law of the petitioner, the petitioner and other persons executed an agreement with a promise to make payment of the money due against his son-in-law to the complainant. It is submitted that later on, son-in-law of the petitioner refused to make the payment and therefore, this present FIR has been lodged, in which, son-in-law of the petitioner is also arraigned as an accused. It is submitted that the petitioner had executed an agreement in the belief that his son-in-law would make the payment, however, now son-in-law of the petitioner has refused to make payment and it cannot be said that petitioner has committed any crime. It is further submitted that as per the direction given by this Court, the petitioner had already joined the investigation.

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the case diary and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner had not borrowed any money from the complainant and looking to his old age, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Rohtash Jain S/o Ramakrishna Jain in FIR No.137/2018 of Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu he shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:-

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CRLMB-4809/2019]

¶22

(i) He shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶23

(ii) He 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 to any Police Officer;

¶24

(iii) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶25

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶26

55-/-Taruna

Rohtash Jain v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohtash Jain v. State of Rajasthan

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

Suresh Kumar Karan Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishal Vs State of Rajasthan

Lucky Garg Vs State of Rajasthan

Sumandar Singh Vs State

Akram Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sukhdev Singh Vs State