Allowed

Jaikishan v. State

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2021CRLMB/8198/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding charges of forgery and cheating. The court found that there was no expert opinion on handwriting forgery and admitted the petitioner had no direct role. Consequently, the court allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, compliance with interrogation, no inducement, and no leaving India without permission.

Jaikishan Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8198/2021

¶3

Jaikishan S/o Amra Ram, aged about 28 years, R/o Village Chohra, Tehsil Sanchore, Disrict Jalore

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Bhagirath	Ray	Bishnoi	with
	Mr. Manohar	Singh	Hada
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Laxman	Solanki,	P.P.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

¶10

Order

¶11

02/09/2021

¶12

This application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 39/2018, Police Station Bakhasar, District Barmer for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was Headmaster of the school; he has no role in issuing the death certificate of Manaram; he has only issued the copies of the attendance register of Manaram after receiving the receipt from Megharam, the brother of deceased Manaram; there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was involved in the conspiracy to receive the false claim from insurance company on

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMB-8198/2021]

¶17

the basis of forged death certificate of Manaram. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the bail application submits that as per prosecution story, the petitioner delivered the original attendance register to the brother of Manaram wherein some forgery was committed.

¶19

The record reveals that there is no opinion of handwriting expert regarding so-called forgery made by the petitioner in the attendance register.

¶20

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner - Jaikishan S/o Amra Ram in connection with F.I.R. No. 39/2018, Police Station Bakhasar, District Barmer, he shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :-

¶22

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

¶23

(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

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLMB-8198/2021]

¶26

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India

¶27

without previous permission of the court.

¶28

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

¶29

180-Inder/-

Jaikishan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaikishan v. State

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

M/S Indian Tube Mills and Metals Ind Ltd. Vs Astt Commissioner Works Contract and Lea

Anuradha W/O Sh.Sameer Haldhani D/O Late Sh. Murari Lal Sain. Vs Sameer Haldani S/O Shri Kamlesh Haldhani

Varsha Mahawar W/O Preetam Verma D/O Shri Ramswaroop Mahawar Vs Preetam Verma S/O Late Shri Chandra Mohan Verma

Smt Shanti Devi Vs State

Tarun Vaishnav Vs State of Rajasthan

Narayan Lal Vs State