Allowed

Vaga Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Apr 2024CRLMB/106/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application by an accused alleged to have resold land already purchased via a 1985 sale deed. The court found essential ingredients of cheating absent and no custodial interrogation required, and granted bail in the event of arrest.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in event of arrest: personal bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, subject to stated conditions.

Vaga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:17383]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 106/2024

¶4

Vaga Ram S/o Shri Naga Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ropsi, Tehsil Raniwara, District Jalore, Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. JayPrakash Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Laxman Solanki,P.P.
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. Rakesh Arora

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

22/04/2024

¶13

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

¶14

S. No.	Particula	rs of the Case
1.	FIR Number	9/2022.
2.	Concerned Police Station	Raniwara.
3.	District	Jalore.
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	U/Sec. 467, 468, 420, 120-B of IPC.
5.	Offences added,if any	U/Sec. 420 of IPC.
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	15.12.2023.

¶15

Having apprehension of being arrested in the aforementioned

¶16

matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out against

[2024:RJ-JD:17383]

[CRLMB-106/2024]

(2 of 3)

him and his 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-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶21

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and submitted that the present case is not fit for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶22

I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. It is revealing that the complainant had purchased the land in question through sale-deed dated 04.10.1985 since then he was in possession. It is alleged that the petitioner, with the aid of the other co-accused persons, has sold a part of the property again to one Kamlesh. As a matter of fact, neither any inducement was given to the petitioner to the complainant Bhiya Ram nor any property has been delivered to the petitioner through the complainant Bhiya Ram. Thus, ingredients, which are essential to attract the provision 420 of IPC, are blatantly absent.

¶23

Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the fact that no monitory loss has been caused to the complainant, litigation has also been pending and no custodial interrogation is required in this case, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the present matter.

¶24

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the

[CRLMB-106/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:17383]

(3 of 3)

concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which have been given in tabular form above, he shall be released on bail, provided he 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:-

¶29

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

¶30

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶31

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

¶32

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶33

Abhishek Kumar S.No.788

Vaga Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaga Ram 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

Hanuman Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rita Soni @ Rekha Vs State and Ors.

Prempuri Vs State of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Singh @ Kipa Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeevan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan