The court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a cheating case, finding the record including chat transcripts and bank statements indicated a fit case for bail denial without need for custodial interrogation.
Application rejected; anticipatory bail not granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023/RJJD/008549]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 76/2023
Anamika D/o Sh. Parbhu Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Malnagar, Teh. Neem Ka Thana, Dist. Sikar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Karan Singh Chouhan |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP |
| Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi, for the complainant. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
04/04/2023
The present criminal misc. bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner in connection with FIR no.399/2022, Police Station Bhadra, District Haumangarh lodged for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of false allegations against the petitioner, the present FIR has been lodged. It is submitted that the petitioner has never met the complainant in person and they are only Facebook friends and there has been no wrongful gain on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner has already joined the investigation and, therefore, there is no
[2023/RJJD/008549]
[CRLMB-76/2023]
(2 of 2)
requirement of the petitioner for custodial interrogation. Thus, it is prayed this anticipatory bail application may be allowed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor on the basis of the factual report submitted by the investigating officer stated that the petitioner while blandishing the complainant and while talking in an indecent manner with the complainant, was able to transfer amount of Rs.5,27,000/- in her bank account. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner may not be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant and perused the material available on record.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the material available on record including that of copies of the chats between the petitioner and complainant on social media, copies of the receipts of transaction and copies of the bank statements, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
In view of the above, the present bail application is hereby rejected.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
122-CPGoyal/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is fit to be granted anticipatory bail in a cheating matter involving social media interaction and money transfer.
Whether the material on record including chat copies and bank statements negates the requirement for custodial interrogation.
Whether the allegations of false case and inducement of the complainant justify the refusal of anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anamika D/o Sh. Parbhu Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Madan Gopal Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
