Allowed

Anil S/O Late Sh. Laxminarayan Mali v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 May 2024CRLMB/1578/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan allowed bail to Anil Mali arrested under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The court held it just and proper to enlarge him on bail as the primary accused is absconding and no recovery has been made from the petitioner yet.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of the accused-petitioner on bail by personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge.

Anil S/O Late Sh. Laxminarayan Mali Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:22687]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1578/2024

¶4

Anil S/o Late Sh. Laxminarayan Mali, Aged About 43 Years, R/o House No. 248/33, Mali Mohalla Topdara, Ajmer Police Station Clock Tower, Ajmer District Ajmer. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

	Versus
The State Of Rajasthan,	Through The Pp	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) :	Mr. NeerajK. Tiwari
For Respondent(s) :	Mr. Riyasat Ali-PP

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶8

Order

¶9

14/05/2024

¶10

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.192/2023 registered at Police Station Sarwad, District Ajmer for the offence(s) under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accusedpetitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. The chargesheet has already been produced before the concerned Court. The main allegation of cheating with farmers and misappropriating the amount of Rs.2,38,36,000/- is against the other co-accused Mukesh Saini. All the transactions were made by co-accused Mukesh Saini and out of transaction of Rs.7,41,53,500/-, Mukesh Saini has paid Rs.5,03,17,500/- to the farmers. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Mukesh Saini was his employee

[2024:RJ-JP:22687]

[CRLMB-1578/2024]

(2 of 3)

and working as ‘Muneem’. He collected the entire amount from the farmers and thereafter misappropriated the amount of Rs.2,38,36,000/-. In the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., all the witnesses have stated that the entire transaction was made by Mukesh Saini and Mukesh Saini returned the part amount to the farmers. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner under pressure, gave a cheque of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in the name of farmers and that cheque was dishonoured. All the allegations in the FIR are against the other co-accused Mukesh Saini and he is still absconding. No recovery of any amount was effected from the petitioner. Petitioner has been indulged in the case solely on the grounds that co-accused Mukesh Saini was his employee. The petitioner is in custody since four months and the further trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accusedpetitioner.

¶16

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.

¶17

Heard and perused the case diary.

¶18

In the FIR, the main allegation of collecting the crops is against Mukesh Saini. In the FIR it is also mentioned that out of speculated price of Rs.7,41,53,500/-, Mukesh Saini has returned Rs.5,03,17,500/-. Mukesh Saini is still absconding. The petitioner has been thoroughly investigated and charge-sheet has already been produced. The accused-petitioner is in custody since four month and the further trial of the case may take considerable, therefore, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accusedpetitioner on bail.

[2024:RJ-JP:22687]

[CRLMB-1578/2024]

(3 of 3)

Accordingly, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Anil S/o Late Sh. Laxminarayan Mali in connection with FIR No.192/2023 registered at Police Station Sarwad, District Ajmer shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶23

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶24

22-Rahul Joshi

Anil S/O Late Sh. Laxminarayan Mali v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil S/O Late Sh. Laxminarayan Mali 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

Rahul Dhanka S/O Shri Kishan Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Singh S/O Shri Bagsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Sant Ram Niranjan S/O Late Shri Raghuvanshi Lal Niranjan Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupindar Singh S/O Sravan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Harinarayan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Pappu Singh S/O Shri Mohan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan