The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an anticipatory bail application. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of false complaint and extortion, deeming the gravity of the offence sufficient to deny bail.
The bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stands 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2081/2020
Mohammad Harun Rasheed S/o Mohammad Hussan, R/o Pinaro Ka Mohalla, Laxmangarh, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
| ----Respondent | ||
|---|---|---|
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. Karma Veer (through VC) |
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP |
| For complainant | : | Mr. Yogesh Kumar Singhal |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
17/09/2020
The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.775/2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 406, 463, 467, 468 and 120B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is wrongly implicated in this case. Complainant who was very much aware that disputed land belongs to the scheduled caste person. Petitioner had not concealed any fact. Complainant had lodged the false case to extort money from the petitioner. So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.
Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had sold the land to the complainant belong to scheduled caste
(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-2081/2020]
person. As per the law, land of the scheduled caste person cannot be sold to the general caste person. The petitioner had taken money from the complainant as per the law sale is ab initio void. Petitioner had denied to pay money to the complainant. So, looking to the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Hence, the bail application stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Brijesh 14.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with alleged cheating and forgery offences involving sale of SC land.
Whether the alleged falsity of complaints and intent to extort money warrant granting bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohammad Harun Rasheed
State Of Rajasthan
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
