Allowed

Ratan Lal Choudhary Son of Surajbhan Choudhary v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Jul 2021CRLMB/10007/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving cheque dishonour and property fraud charges, noting the lack of a written refund agreement and the potential futility of arrest.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed with personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each.

Ratan Lal Choudhary Son of Surajbhan Choudhary Vs the… — Money Laundering | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10007/2021

¶3

Ratan Lal Choudhary Son Of Surajbhan Choudhary, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 148, Balaji Vihar-4, Govindpura, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajneesh Gupta present in the Court
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. Pankaj Sharma through VC
For State	: Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶9

Judgment / Order

¶10

23/07/2021

¶11

Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶12

F.I.R. No.159/2021 was registered at Police Station, Jhotwara, Jaipur City (West) for offence under Sections 420, 406, 384, 467, 468, 471, 477 I.P.C.

¶13

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that as per the allegation in the F.I.R., the agreement was executed between the complainant and the petitioner way back in the year 2014. For exchange of plots, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was given to the petitioner. As per the F.I.R. this agreement was cancelled, however, date of cancellation of agreement is not mentioned in the F.I.R. It is mentioned that petitioner agreed to pay a sum of

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMB-10007/2021]

¶16

Rs.23,40,000/- to the complainant and gave a cheque of Rs.3,40,000/-. It is also contended that the agreement stands cancelled. There is no agreement to the effect that petitioner would pay a cheque of Rs.23,40,000/-. It is further contended that the cheque was misused by the complainant. The account from which the cheque was issued itself was closed in the year 2015. There was no possibility of giving a cheque in the year 2020. It is also contended that prior to the present F.I.R., one F.I.R. No.55/2019 was lodged by the petitioner against the complainant.

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. It is contended that petitioner tried to exchange the property, which originally belongs to one Ajeet Kumar Jaju. It is also contended that an agreement was cancelled, as petitioner was not the owner of the plot which he wanted to exchange. It is further contended that an oral agreement was entered into between the parties to the effect that petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.23,40,000/-.

¶18

I have considered the contentions.

¶19

Taking note of the fact that the agreement is of the year 2014, no date is mentioned in the F.I.R. when agreement was cancelled, there is no written document that petitioner would refund the sum of Rs.23,40,000/- and no purpose would be served in arresting the petitioner, hence I deem it proper to allow the anticipatory bail application.

¶20

The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur City (West) in F.I.R. No. 159/2021 is directed that in the event of arrest of the

¶21

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-10007/2021]

¶22

petitioner he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to his satisfaction on the following conditions:-

¶23

(I). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶24

(ii). that the petitioner 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 any police officer, and

¶25

(iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶26

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶27

ARTI SHARMA /36

Ratan Lal Choudhary Son of Surajbhan Choudhary v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Lal Choudhary Son of Surajbhan Choudhary v. the 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

Madanlal Son of Shri Danmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Juned Alam S/O Shri Mohammed Habibul Rahman Vs State of Rajasthan

Sushil S/O Shri Ramkaran Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramphool S/O Samnata Vs the State of Rajasthan

Premchand S/O Shri Mathuralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Balveer S/O Sultan Vs State of Rajasthan