Dismissed

Dinesh Bhati v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Sept 2022CRLMB/4063/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by relatives accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court held that the case involved multiple agreements allegedly defrauding buyers of the same property, making arrest necessary for investigation, thus rejecting the claim that proceedings were merely civil.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was dismissed. Petitioners permitted to surrender within 15 days and apply for bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C.

Dinesh Bhati Vs the State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6760/2022

¶3

Mohan Lal Bhati S/o Poonam Chand Bhati, Aged About 65 Years, B/c Ghanchi R/o 25 Ghanchiyon Ka Bada Bass Bheru Ghat Pali Marwar Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4063/2022
1. Dinesh Bhati S/o Mohan Lal Bhati, Aged About 48 Years, By
Caste Ghanchi, R/o 25, Ghanchiyon Ka Bada Bass Bheru
Ghat, Pali Marwar (Raj.)
2. Pramod Bhati S/o Mohan Lal Bhati, Aged About 50 Years,
By Caste Ghanchi, R/o 25, Ghanchiyon Ka Bada Bass Bheru
Ghat, Pali Marwar (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nand Kishore Dadhich
Mr. Jaya Dadhich
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, P.P.
Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit
Mr. Deepak Menaria

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶8

Order

¶9

Order Reserved on : 09/09/2022 Date of pronouncement: 14/09/2022

¶10

(2 of 4)

¶11

[CRLMB-6760/2022]

¶12

These anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No. 319/2021, Police Station Kotwali Pali, District Pali for the offences under Sections 420 & 406 IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It is argued that the entire matter is of civil nature and the complainant has already filed a civil suit before the competent Court, therefore, the present criminal proceedings are abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready to pay the amount of consideration in the sum of Rs. 22,50,000/- to the complainant but the complainant is refusing to receive the same. There is no requirement of custodial investigation and therefore, the petitioners maybe enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that petitioners had entered into an agreement to sale with regard to an industrial plot and thereafter, executed an agreement to sale with regard to same land in favour of another person, and thus committed fraud with the complainant, therefore, the bail application may be rejected.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶16

On perusal of the FIR filed by the complainant as well as case diary, it is revealed that the petitioner Mohan lal entered into an agreement to sale in favour of complainant for sale of

¶17

(3 of 4)

¶18

[CRLMB-6760/2022]

¶19

50% share in an industrial plot for a sum of Rs. 22,50,000/- on 19.03.2019 and received the consideration and also executed a Will in favour of complainant. The accused Laxmi narayan, Dinesh and Pramod Bhati with due consent had put their signatures as witnesses. However, the physical possession of the industrial plot could not be taken by the complainant as it was rented out. In the meantime, the petitioners executed yet another agreement to sale in favour of one Kishore Maheshwari on 29.10.2020 and received a sum of Rs. 59,77,000/- and later on executed a gift deed in favour of his son Om Prakash on 21.01.2021. A similar FIR has also been filed by Kishore Maheshwari against the petitioners and wife of petitioner Mohan lal, being FIR No. 146/2021, in which chargesheet has been filed and matter is pending trial. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and matter is of civil nature. In these circumstances, it is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

¶20

It is well settled that the power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty. It is also well settled that ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes and it may be necessary to curtail the freedom of an accused in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and prevent the disappearance of the accused.

¶21

(4 of 4)

¶22

[CRLMB-6760/2022]

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioners are permitted to surrender before the trial court within a period of 15 days from today and file an application for bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C and it is expected from the trial court that the bail application will be decided as far as possible

¶24

on the same day.

¶25

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶26

197-BJSH/-

Dinesh Bhati v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Bhati 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

Karan Vs State of Rajasthan

Munni Devi @ Komal Vs State of Rajasthan

Amrender Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lachhi Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shantilal Vs State of Rajasthan