Allowed

Smt. Urmila Devi W/O Shri Shivlahari v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Sept 2023CRLMB/971/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to Smt. Urmila Devi in her in camera partial bail application in connection with offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC arising from a civil dispute over immovable property.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is allowed; the petitioner is released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties.

Smt. Urmila Devi W/O Shri Shivlahari Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:22476]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 971/2023

¶4

Smt. Urmila Devi W/o Shri Shivlahari, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of E-8/27, Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Meena for Mr. Mahendra Shandilya

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP Mr. Pranav Pareek for Mr. Anoop Pareek

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

¶12

Order

¶13

13/09/2023

¶14

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with FIR No.452/2022 registered with Police Station Bhatta Basti, District Jaipur City (North) for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC.

¶15

The complainant alleges that he had paid Rs.45 Lakhs in cash as part consideration to the petitioner for transfer of immovable property and an agreement was also executed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false and concocted document has been created. It is highly unbelievable that such a huge amount would be paid in cash. Moreover, there is no evidence as to from where the complainant had brought huge money. The petitioner is a female.

(2 of 2)

[2023:RJ-JP:22476]

[CRLMB-971/2023]

Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the prayer for bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶22

Considering the nature of dispute, let the petitioner be released on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest or surrender within two weeks, the petitioner above-named shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of like amount on following conditions:-

¶24

(i) that the petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation of the case;

¶25

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

¶26

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

¶27

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶28

Ashish Kumar /184

Smt. Urmila Devi W/O Shri Shivlahari v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Urmila Devi W/O Shri Shivlahari 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

Ram Avatar Singh S/O Shri Chandrabhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Nandlal @ Nandkar S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Babudi Meena D/O Prithviraj Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Saini S/O Gopal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Rekha Verma W/O Shri Mahendra Kumar Verma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Iliyas S/O Kasam Vs State of Rajasthan