Allowed

Chhatarpal S/O Shri Kishansingh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Jul 2024CRLMB/1047/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by two accused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust FIR. The court noted they had joined investigation and been interrogated pursuant to an earlier coordinate bench order, and without expressing any opinion on merits extended the benefit of anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; on arrest, petitioners to be released on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 each with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each, subject to stated conditions.

Chhatarpal S/O Shri Kishansingh Vs the State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:31796]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1047/2024

¶4

Chhatarpal S/o Shri Kishansingh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Fazilpur Jhadsa Gurugram (Haryana)

¶5

Jaswant Singh S/o Shri Kishan Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o House Number 365, Sector -10 A, Gurugram (Hayana)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Prakash Chand Thakuriya
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, Public Prosecutor
	Mr. Surendra Singh Sunda for complainant

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order

¶12

26/07/2024

¶13

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.250/2023, registered at Police Station Khushkhera, District Police District Bhiwadi, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been implicated in this case based on false and fabricated story. Counsel further submits that considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners and the dispute between the parties, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide detailed order dated 31.05.2024 directed the petitioners to join investigation. Counsel further submits that in compliance of the said order, the petitioners have joined the investigation and

[2024:RJ-JP:31796]

[CRLMB-1047/2024]

(2 of 3)

have been interrogated by the Investigating Officer. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are no more required for any interrogation or recovery, therefore, they may be released on bail.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant opposed the anticipatory bail application. They submit that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature.

¶20

Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

¶21

In compliance of the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide detailed order dated 31.05.2023, the petitioners have joined the investigation and have been interrogated by the Investigating Officer and this fact has been admitted by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

Taking into consideration the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also the fact that they have joined the investigation and have been interrogated by the Investigating Officer, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, deems it just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶23

Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Khushkhera, Police District Bhiwadi, District Alwar in F.I.R. No.250/2023 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners they shall be released on bail, provided each of them shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:31796]

[CRLMB-1047/2024]

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to his satisfaction 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 him 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

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶32

Satyendra/166

Chhatarpal S/O Shri Kishansingh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhatarpal S/O Shri Kishansingh v. the 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

Sitaram @ Gyani S/O Shri Hiralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankar S/O Mukesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahil S/O Shri Aas Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Deshraj S/O Ramjilal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ghanshyam Bhambhani S/O Kanhaiya Pritam Bhambhani Vs State of Rajasthan

Pritam Kumar Swami S/O Sh. Jagdish Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan