Allowed

Jeevan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Apr 2024CRLMB/1088/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Rajasthan granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of cheating and forgery. The court accepted the undertaking to refund the amount within 30 days and ordered the release on personal bond if arrested.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to refunding the upfront amount within 30 days, furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, and appearing for interrogation if arrested.

Jeevan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:17397]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1088/2024

¶4

Jeevan Lal S/o Shri Prem Chand, Aged About 65 Years, R/o B-4/476 Sulatanpuri New Delhi 110086

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. L.D. Khatri
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Laxman Solanki,P.P.
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. NeerajGurjar

¶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	213/2023.
2.	Concerned Police Station	Pokaran.
3.	District	Jaisalmer.
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	U/Sec. 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC.
5.	Offences added,if any	--
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	23.01.2024.

¶15

Having apprehension of being arrested in the aforementioned

¶16

matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:17397]

[CRLMB-1088/2024]

ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out against 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. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. It is revealing that the petitioner and the complainant entered into a compromise for a piece of a land against the monitory consideration and upfront amount was given by the complainant to the petitioner. Time was the essence of the contract. It is argued that after the expiry of the stipulated period, the petitioner has sold the land to some other person.

¶22

Learned counsel Mr. L.D. Khatri would submit with utmost responsibility that the petitioner would give back upfront amount to the complainant within a period of next 30 days. 7. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that since the land has been sold, therefore, no custodial interrogation is required in the present case, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the present matter subject to the condition that the petitioner shall refund the upfront amount to the complainant within next 30 days.

¶23

[2024:RJ-JD:17397] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1088/2024]

¶24

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 petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which have been given in tabular form above, he shall be released on bail provided he refunds the upfront amount to the complainant within next 30 day and 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:-

¶25

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

¶26

(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

¶27

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

¶28

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶29

Abhishek Kumar S.No.789

Jeevan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevan Lal 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.

Vaga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Prempuri Vs State of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Singh @ Kipa Vs State of Rajasthan