Dismissed

Mohammad Aslam S/O Ahmad Bux v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Nov 2020CRLMB/7137/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving cheque dishonour and alleged breach of an agreement for sale. The Court held that the gravity of the offence precludes granting anticipatory bail, rejecting the petitioner's claim that the case was purely civil.

What did the court decide?

The bail application stands dismissed; the benefit of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not granted.

Mohammad Aslam S/O Ahmad Bux Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7137/2020

¶3

Mohammad Aslam S/o Ahmad Bux, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No 30 Shakti Vihar Borkhera Kota (Kota)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mukesh Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶9

Order

¶10

18/11/2020

¶11

The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.32/2020 registered at Police Station Gumanpura, Kota City for the offence(s) under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC are not made out against the petitioner. As per contents of the FIR, case is purely civil in nature. Complainant had filed the case against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Two criminal proceedings cannot be run simultaneously. So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner had taken Rs.10 lacs as an advance as per agreement for sale of

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMB-7137/2020]

¶16

house. Despite efforts of the complainant, petitioner had not complied with the agreement. After that, he had returned the advance money given to the complainant by way of cheque of Rs.10 lacs and that cheque was dishonored. So, the intention of the petitioner is malafide. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner be rejected.

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.

¶18

Allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner had taken Rs.10 lacs as an advance as per agreement dated 27.04.2018 in which he agreed to sale the house for the amount of Rs. Rs.20 lacs. Complainant offered him remaining amount to comply with the agreement but the petitioner had malafide intention. He did not comply with the agreement and returned the advance money taken by him by way of cheque of Rs.10 lacs that cheque was also dishonored.

¶19

On account of gravity of offence, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Hence, the bail application stands dismissed.

¶20

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶21

Jatin /14

Mohammad Aslam S/O Ahmad Bux v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Aslam S/O Ahmad Bux 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

Bhuvnesh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Rameshwar Prasad Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Puneet Solanki S/O Vijender Solanki Vs State of Rajasthan

Imrati Devi W/O Gangaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh S/O Shri Baluram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramcharan S/O Kanhaiya Vs State of Rajasthan