Allowed

Ramjilal Verma S/O Late Ramsukhlal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 May 2024CRLMB/1744/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in a financial offence land case. The High Court, considering that custodial interrogation is not required and the petitioner is ready to cooperate, allowed the bail application.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in Rs. 25,000 each.

Ramjilal Verma S/O Late Ramsukhlal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:22080]

¶2

pHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1744/2024

¶4

Ramjilal Verma S/o Late Ramsukhlal, R/o 16, Bhagwati Nagar First, Kartarpura, Jaipur The Then Sub Divisional Officer, Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Mahala-PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

09/05/2024

¶13

1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.341/2010 registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, A.C.B. Jaipur, Rajasthan for the offence(s) under Sections 13(1)(c), D, 13(2) of P. C. Act and under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B of IPC, the petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶14

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The FIR was lodged in 2010 and petitioner many a times appeared before the concerned Investigating Officer. The petitioner retired from the services in 2015. The allegations pertains to year 2010 which alleges that petitioner wrongfully converted the lands under Section 90-B and thereafter, the said lands were sold and pattas were issued. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner acted

[2024:RJ-JP:22080]

[CRLMB-1744/2024]

(2 of 3)

upon the report of Patwari. Petitioner is still ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation. The custodial interrogation of accused-petitioner is not required. The Police has already proposed the charge-sheet against the other co-accused and present petitioner.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits the factual report dated 30.01.2024. The same is taken on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that in a similar case lodged against the petitioner and other co-accused, petitioner has been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 11.10.2022 by the Co-ordinate Bench and the present case is identical to the case in which petitioner has been enlarged on anticipatory bail. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶20

5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application. 6. I have considered the overall allegations levelled in the FIR and contentions made by the counsel for the parties. 7. Admittedly, report dated 30.01.2024 shows that matter was enquired in the year 2009 and thereafter, FIR was registered in the year 2010 by A.C.B. Jaipur (Rural) and thereafter, investigation proceeded. The factual report also shows that charge-sheet against the other co-accused and petitioner has already been proposed and the same is pending for want of prosecution sanction against the other co-accused and due to filing of the D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.1469/2019. Thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case and

[CRLMB-1744/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:22080]

(3 of 3)

looking to the fact that custodial investigation of the present petitioner is not required, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner.

¶25

8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner- Ramjilal Verma S/o Late Ramsukhlal, in connection with FIR No.341/2010 registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, A.C.B. Jaipur, Rajasthan, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishs a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶26

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

¶27

(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

¶28

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

¶29

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶30

117-Rahul Joshi

Ramjilal Verma S/O Late Ramsukhlal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramjilal Verma S/O Late Ramsukhlal 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

Raju Vs State

Mahavir Singh S/O Shri Shambhu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Phool Singh Vs State

Ramniwas S/O Gheesaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram S/O Shri Ummed Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Satish Kumar S/O Deshram Vs State of Rajasthan