Partly allowed

Prem Prakash Bidiyasar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Apr 2023CRLMB/699/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan dismissed anticipatory bail for a male accused facing a strong prima facie case for fraud and forgery but granted it to his female relative against whom no specific allegations were made in the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioner No.2 (Pushpa Bidiyasar) on personal bond of Rs. 2L and two sureties of Rs. 1L each with conditions; application of petitioner No.1 dismissed.

Prem Prakash Bidiyasar Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/009971]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 699/2023

¶4

Prem Prakash Bidiyasar S/o Shri Ghyanendra Singh, Aged About 72 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Village Ransisar Charnan, P.s. Khunkhuna, District Nagaur. At Present B-2/444 Chitarkut Jaipur.

¶5

Smt. Pushpa Bidiyasar W/o Prem Prakash Bidiyasar, Aged About 68 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Village Ransisar Charnan, P.s. Khunkhuna, District Nagaur. At Present B-2/444 Chitarkut Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate
	assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate assisted
	by Mr. Rajendra Prasad

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶12

Order

¶13

13/04/2023

¶14

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No. 304/2014, Police Station Ratanada, Jodhpur East for the offences under Section 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 120B IPC.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It is argued that the petitioners neither prepared any forged documents nor put any signature of any person for the purpose of cheating. It is submitted that the complainant had misappropriate the money of

[2023/RJJD/009971]

[CRLMB-699/2023]

(2 of 4)

the company and in this regard, the petitioner no.1 lodged FIRs against the complainant at different police stations and as a counterblast the complainant has lodged the present FIR against the petitioners. It is also argued that the complainant was removed from the Directorship of company by a resolution and if the complainant is aggrieved by the resolution, the complainant is at liberty to file appeal in accordance with law, therefore, in these circumstances the anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant argued that the present petitioners are the main accused who included their family members as share holders and after creating forged documents and putting fake signatures, removed the complainant from the Directorship. The role of petitioners is clear from the reading of the FIR and it is a clear case of fraud and deceit which is writ large from the documents on record. Therefore, at this stage, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of petitioners.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the material on record.

¶22

The allegation against the present petitioners is that the petitioners committed fraud with the complainant and other two share holders by including their family members as shareholders and thereafter, conducted bogus meetings and ousted the complainant from the Directorship of the company by putting fake signatures of other shareholders. It is also alleged that during the

[2023/RJJD/009971]

[CRLMB-699/2023]

(3 of 4)

period when the alleged meetings were held, one of the shareholder Preeti Bidiyasar was out of country. Thus, from the perusal of the FIR, a prima facie case under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 120B IPC is proved against the petitioner No.1 Prem Prakash Bidiyasar. However, no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner no.2 Pushpa Bidiyasar.

¶27

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 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.

¶28

In the case in hand, the collected oral and documentary evidence prima facie shows involvement of the petitioner No.1 Prem Prakash bidiyasar in the deep rooted conspiracy with other co-accused persons. A strong prima facie case is available against the petitioner No.1 for committing fraud and forgery. When investigation is still going on, it would not be proper at this stage to release the applicant no.1 on pre-arrest bail.

¶29

In view of the foregoing, the bail application preferred by the petitioner No.1 Prem Prakash Bidiyasar under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner no.2 being a lady and no specific allegation has been levelled against her, therefore, I

[2023/RJJD/009971]

[CRLMB-699/2023]

(4 of 4)

deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the applicant no.2 Smt. Pushpa Bidiyasar.

¶34

It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant no.2 in connection with FIR No. 304/2014 of Police Station Ratanada, Jodhpur East, the accused-applicant Pushpa Bidiyasar W/o Prem Prakash Bidiyasar shall be released on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on the following conditions:-

¶35

(1) She shall himself available for interrogation before Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶36

(2) She 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 to any Police Officer;

¶37

(3) She shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶38

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶39

103-BJSH/-

Prem Prakash Bidiyasar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Prakash Bidiyasar 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

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Das Vs State of Rajasthan

Arvind Bhati Manish Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Pushpa Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Vs State of Rajasthan

Gulam Nabi Vs State of Rajasthan