Allowed

Sanju v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Nov 2023CRLMB/8183/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to petitioners in a criminal matter involving cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The High Court held that the case arose from a property dispute and did not warrant custodial interrogation, adhering to prior Supreme Court precedents. Bail was permitted subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail subject to providing personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, complying with specific conditions including availability for interrogation a

Sanju Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:39233]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8183/2022

¶4

Sanju W/o Sh. Ramswaroop, Aged About 40 Years, Osian Road, Khiwsar, Teh. Khiwsar, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

¶5

Ramswaroop S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 45 Years, Osian Road, Khiwsar, Teh. Khiwsar, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Gaur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP Mr. Mohd. Sameer Khan for Mr. Sunil Mehta

¶11

JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶12

Order

¶13

16/11/2023

¶14

The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 438 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶15

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	10/2022
2.	Concerned Police Station	Kiwsar
3.	District	Nagaur
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of the IPC
5.	Offences added,if any	-
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	17.06.2022

[2023:RJ-JD:39233]

[CRLMB-8183/2022]

(2 of 3)

Having apprehension of being arrested in the aforementioned matter, the petitioners have prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioners and they has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶20

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail application and submit that the present case is not fit for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶21

Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. The case relates to a transactional dispute between the parties with regard to a property. The case is exclusively triable by a Court of Magistrate for which the provisions contained under Sections 41 and 41-A of the Cr.P.C. applies mutandis mutatis as well as it covers with the preposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

¶22

[AIR 2014 SC 2756]. Present one is not a case where a custodial interrogation would be required. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is indulged in other criminal activities. A Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim protection to the petitioners on 22.06.2022 whereafter one and half year has lapsed but there is not a single instance where any misuse of the liberty granted to the petitioners have been reported.

[2023:RJ-JD:39233]

[CRLMB-8183/2022]

(3 of 3)

Thus, in light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Kumar Vs. State of Dehli (Criminal Appeal No.360/2022) reported in 2022/INSC/275 , and considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the present matter. Needless to say, none of the observations made herein under shall affect the rights of either of the parties during trial and this Court refrains from commenting on the niceties of the matter.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with the FIR, details of which have been given in tabular form above, they shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶29

(ii) that the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶30

(iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶31

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶32

139-Mamta/-

Sanju v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju 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

Ganpat Singh Solanki Vs State of Rajasthan

Gourishankar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajkumar @ Raju Vs Union of India

Ranidan Ci Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupendra Singh @ Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilip Nath Vs State of Rajasthan