Allowed

Sunil Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 May 2023CRLMB/3092/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to two petitioners arrested in connection with cheating offences. Despite allegations of falsity and financial loss, the court deemed it just to release them on personal bond given the pending civil suit and lack of evidence of tampering risk.

What did the court decide?

Accused petitioners enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Sunil Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/012857]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3092/2023

¶4

Sunil Sharma S/o Shri Pawan Kishore Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 516, 7Th C Road, Near Satsang Bhawan, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. At Present House Of Narendra Bhandari, Near Dainik Bhaskar Office, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur.

¶5

(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶6

Smt. Manju Devi Sharma W/o Late Shri Pawan Kishore Sharma, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 516, 7Th C Road, Near Satsang Bhawan, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. At Present House Of Narendra Bhandari, Near Dainik Bhaskar Office, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur.

¶7

(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4191/2023

¶13

Sunil Sharma S/o Shri Pawan Kishore Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 516, 7Th C Road, Near Satsang Bhawan, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. At Present House Of Narendra Bhandari, Near Dainik Bhaskar Office, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur.

¶14

(Login Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶15

Smt. Manju Devi Sharma W/o Late Shri Pawan Kishore Sharma, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 516, 7Th C Road, Near Satsang Bhawan, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. At Present House Of Narendra Bhandari, Near Dainik Bhaskar Office, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur. (Login Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶16

----Petitioners

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anand Purohit, Sr.Advocate with

¶21

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-3092/2023 & 4191/2023]

¶22

[2023/RJJD/012857]

¶23

	Mr.Kapil Purohit.
For Respondent-State	: Mr.Shiv Kumar Bhati,P.P.
For Complainant	: Mr.Falgun Buch.

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶25

ORDER

¶26

01/05/2023

¶27

These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIRs Nos.450/2021 & 154/2023 registered at Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur City (East) for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

¶28

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners at the outset submitted that from the perusal of the FIR, it would reveal that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in a criminal case, though the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and various civil suits concerning/relating to the same are pending adjudication before competent civil court and an order to maintain status quo with regard to property in dispute has been passed by the competent civil court.

¶29

Learned counsel submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners is that they have sold a plot to the complainant by showing the same to be of their ownership by creating forged documents with the connivance of employees of the Sub-Registrar Office. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the amount taken by the petitioners in advance from the complainant has already been returned to him and therefore, he ought not to have lodged FIR against the petitioners.

¶30

(3 of 4) [CRLMB-3092/2023 & 4191/2023]

¶31

[2023/RJJD/012857]

¶32

Learned counsel submitted that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are triable by a court of Magistrate. Learned counsel thus, implored the Court to accept the bail application.

¶33

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant – Mr.Falgun Buch, vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that sufficient evidence is available on record, showing that the petitioners cheated the complainant and caused him huge financial loss. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it is absolutely wrong to contend that the amount taken in advance by the petitioners from the complainant had been returned. As a matter of fact, huge amount is due to be recovered from the present petitioners and therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail.

¶34

Learned counsel for the complainant however was not in a position to dispute the fact that civil suits between the parties pertaining to the very land/plots is/are pending before competent civil court and an order to maintain status quo is in force.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

¶36

Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, in the considered opinion of this Court, the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are triable by a court of Magistrate. It is also not in dispute that the civil suit between the parties relating to same property is/are pending. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is not in the interest of

¶37

[2023/RJJD/012857]

¶38

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-3092/2023 & 4191/2023]

¶39

justice, that the accused should face trial for indefinite period particularly when, there is no allegation against him that if released on bail, they would interfere with the trial or tamper with the evidence. Looking to the possibility that the trial may take long time to conclude, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶40

Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners- (i) Sunil Sharma S/o Shri Pawan Kishore Sharma and (ii) Smt. Manju Devi Sharma W/o Late Shri Pawan Kishore Sharma shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIRs Nos.450/2021 & 154/2023 registered at Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur City (East), provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶41

A copy of this order be placed in each file.

¶42

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶43

/tarun goyal/ Sr.No.71, 120

Sunil Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Sharma 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

Bhawani Singh @ Pinnu Kachawa Vs State of Rajasthan

Dungar Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikas Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanumanram Vs State of Rajasthan

Udayram Vs State