Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma dismissed two connected anticipatory bail applications filed by Amit Kaushik. The court found that despite an earlier FIR regarding fraud where the petitioner was implicated, the present case did not warrant anticipatory bail.
Application dismissed; no anticipatory bail granted.
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. 5169/2021 Amit Kaushik S/o Shri Vidhya Sagar Kaushik, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 2-B-1 Pawanpuri Bikaner Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11899/2021 Amit Kaushik S/o Shri Vidhya Sagar Kaushik, R/o 2-B-1 Pawanpuri Bikaner Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP Mr. Chandra Shekhar-for complainant Mr. Mukesh Choudhary, C.I.-S.H.O. Police Station Bhankrota, Jaipur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order
05/10/2021
These bail applications have been filed under Section 438 CrPC. in connection with FIR No.290/2020 registered at Police Station Chitrakoot, District Jaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 406, 409 & 120-B of IPC and in another FIR No.360/2020 registered at Police Station, Chitrakoot, District Jaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 406, & 120-B of IPC whereupon the investigation was commenced. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved the bail application before the court below, which were dismissed. Hence, the present bail application has been filed.
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-5169/2021]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before lodging of an FIR No.290/2020 wherein the petitioner has been sought to be arrested, the complainant had lodged earlier FIR bearing No.198/2020 on 29.07.2020 wherein allegations of forgery and fraud were levelled against one Abhinav Sharma and eight to ten other persons mentioning that they had attempted to take possession of the plot which the complainant had purchased.
Learned counsel submits that the present FIR is completely false and has been lodged roping the petitioner although he cannot be said to be in any manner involved except that the petitioner has disputes relating to his own partner-Inder Singh Rathore.
Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the Complainant opposes these bail applications.
I have considered the submissions and perused the documents in the file.
Apart from the present FIR, an earlier FIR was lodged by the complainant wherein final report has been submitted by the police and it has been found that the petitioner along with one Purshottam Singh have committed fraud and sold fradulently a plot which was not owned by them to the complainant. A huge amount of Rs.92 lacs is found to have been obtained by fraud.
Without commenting further on merits of the case and taking into consideration overall aspects, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. These anticipatory bail applications are accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
SAURABH/8-9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether the allegations of fraud and forgery are cogent enough to deny bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amit Kaushik
State Of Rajasthan
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
