Dismissed

Tara Singh S/O Atar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Mar 2023CRLMB/1034/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court dismissed the plea for anticipatory bail. The court held that due to the gravity of the cheating offence and the need for custodial interrogation, it was not a fit case to grant bail, and vacated an interim order.

What did the court decide?

Criminal bail application dismissed; interim order dated 13.02.2023 vacated.

Tara Singh S/O Atar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/004281]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1034/2023

¶4

Tara Singh S/o Atar Singh, R/o Sare Kalan P.s. Chaupanki, Distt. Alwar.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: None
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
For Complainant(s)	: None

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

¶11

16/03/2023

¶12

Learned lawyers are not attending/co-operating with the Court in judicial proceedings since last more than three weeks, though, they have no grievance against the Court Administration. 2. The Apex Court in the judgment of Harish Uppal Vs. Union

¶13

Of India & Anr. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45 observed that non-cooperation in judicial proceeding is not only punitive one, rather the Court is empowered to proceed in the listed judicial matters according to the law even in the absence of the parties and/or their Advocates.

¶14

The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr. P.C. in connection with FIR No.330/2022 registered at Police Station Chaupanki, District Police Bhiwadi, District Alwar for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 120-B and

[2023/RJJP/004281]

[CRLMB-1034/2023]

(2 of 2)

506 IPC (later on offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC was found to have been made out).

¶19

Petitioner in his pleadings mentioned that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has joined the investigation as per direction of this Court. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted the latest factual report in which Investigating Officer mentioned that petitioner did not join the investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery of money. So, bail be dismissed.

¶21

I have considered the pleadings of the petitioner as well as arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had taken the money from complainant in lieu of agreement to sell the property of his relative but registry was not done in favour of the complainant. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also required. So, looking to the gravity of offence, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶22

Hence, the interim order dated 13.02.2023 is vacated and the criminal misc. bail application stands dismissed.

¶23

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶24

Jatin/86

Tara Singh S/O Atar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Singh S/O Atar Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahid @ Raja Kureshi Son of Shri Ikramudeen Kureshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Mosin Khan S/O Nisar Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Komal Kaur W/O Surendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Chaudhary S/O Shri Chauthmal Chaudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Singh S/O Kishan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Tapesh Choudhary S/O Purkharam Vs State of Rajasthan