Allowed

Dharam Singh Son of Mewaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 May 2023CRLMB/4521/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail application was allowed. The Court held that the case was civil in nature based on the final inquiry report and that issuing arrest warrants immediately without summons was an interference with personal liberty, citing Inder Mohan Goswami.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each subject to conditions.

Dharam Singh Son of Mewaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4521/2023

¶3

Dharam Singh Son Of Mewaram, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Ancholi, Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur Senior Citizen)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

25/05/2023

¶12

This instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.716/2016, Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after thorough investigation from all the four corners, the Police submitted final report negative by treating instant case is of civil nature. Counsel submits that on protest petition filed by the complainant cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Counsel submits that straightway arrest warrants have been issued against the petitioner. Counsel submits that instant case is a case of civil nature and a civil suit with regard to same dispute is pending

¶14

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-4521/2023]

¶15

before the competent Court, so indulgence of anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶18

Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that after investigation Police submitted final report negative by treating this case is of civil nature and on protest petition filed by the complainant cognizance has been taken and arrest warrants have been issued against the petitioner, and also considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. reported in 2007 (12) SCC 1 wherein it has been held that issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with the personal liberty. Non-bailable warrants should be issued to bring a person to Court when summons and bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result, then appropriate modes be used for his appearance through bailable and non-bailable warrants, but here in this case straight away arrest warrants were issued against the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court instant case is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Dharam Singh son of Mewaram in connection with FIR No.716/2016 registered Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CRLMB-4521/2023]

¶22

along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :-

¶23

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

¶24

(ii). that the petitioner/s 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

¶25

(iii). that the petitioner/s shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶26

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶27

KuD/37

Dharam Singh Son of Mewaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Singh Son of Mewaram 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

Harnarayan S/O Shri Heeralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Prakash Sen S/O Shri Madan Lal Sen Vs the State of Rajasthan

Karamveer Singh S/O Shri Rajveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Govind Singh S/O Babu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Saloni D/O Shri Kunjbihari Vs State of Rajasthan