Allowed

Ladu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Nov 2021CRLMB/4066/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners charged under various IPC sections for alleged property fraud. The court acted on the admission that they were merely witnesses in the relevant sale deed and that other main accused were already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Grant of bail on condition of furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, subject to conditions of availability, no interference with witnesses, and no leaving I

Ladu Vs State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4066/2021

¶3

Ladu S/o Rama Kharol, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Devpura Girdiya, Police Station Kotdi, Dist. Bhilwara.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4067/2021 Kailash S/o Heeralal Kharol, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Girdiya, P.s. Kotdi, Dist. Bhilwara.

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. NK Gurjar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Javed Gauri, PP
	Mr. Rahul Batty

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶16

Order

¶17

16/11/2021

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

¶19

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No.159/2020 of Police Station Shahpura, Distt. Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 & 120-B IPC and therefore, have filed these bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant Natwar Singh filed one criminal complaint that the

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

[CRLMB-4066/2021]

¶23

agricultural land purchased by him and others through sale deed dated 12.10.1995, have been sold by other persons including petitioners through registered sale deed dated 11.06.2020 and all the persons have committed such act knowingly just to gain unlawful benefit and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the revenue land in question was in fact recorded in the name Smt. Aloli and Lad Devi, in the revenue record and they have executed sale deed 11.06.2020 where upon petitioners made their signatures as witnesses. The petitioners are neither the beneficiaries of sale proceeds nor are sellers. As far as Smt. Aloli and Lad Devi and others are concerned have already enlarged on bail and there is no necessity of custodial investigation of the petitioners and the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application. However, it has been not disputed that both the petitioners are only witnesses in the sale deed in question and the main persons have already been released on bail after arrest. The allegation against the petitioners is only that they were involved with the seller and purchaser in execution of sale deed before the sub-registrar.

¶25

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the nature of dispute as well as the role of petitioners being only the witnesses, in the peculiar fact and circumstances of the matter, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioners under Section 438

(3 of 3)

[CRLMB-4066/2021]

Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners Ladu S/o Rama Kharol and Kailash S/o Heeralal Kharol in FIR No.159/2020 of Police Station Shahpura, Distt. Bhilwara, they shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them 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:-

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶33

97-98-Anshul/-

Ladu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ladu 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

Ramchandra Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Ram @ Raja Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Aashish Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Vs State of Rajasthan

Narain Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Giri Vs State