Allowed

Surya Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Mar 2024CRLMB/265/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Jodhpur High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the case relied on documentary evidence held by the complainant and the company, and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Surya Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:11000]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 265/2024

¶4

Surya Prakash S/o Ram Kishore, Aged About 31 Years, R/o House No. 249-B, Janta Colony, Basni-2Nd Charan, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Himanshu Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Laxman Solanki,PP
	Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

05/03/2024

¶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.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	392/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Kudi Bhagtasni
3.	District	Jodhpur CityWest
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of the IPC
5.	Offences added,if any	-
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	03.01.2024

¶15

Having apprehension of being arrested in the aforementioned matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out

[2024:RJ-JD:11000]

[CRLMB-265/2024]

(2 of 3)

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.

¶20

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail application and submit that the present case is not fit for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. The complainant is none other than the brother-in-law of the petitioner and he knew him pretty well that he was working as an agent at Angle Broking Ltd. Company. It is revealing that for a long period, the complainant invested his money with the Company with the help of the petitioner and obtained handsome benefit. At a subsequent stage, owing to some unavoidable circumstances, the benefit could not be awarded to the complainant which led to lodging of the FIR. Dishonest intention is a basic element to constitute offence under Section 420 of the IPC besides inducement to do something and doing by the others under such influence. The above are the questions open to moot for the purpose and the same could be adjudicated by the learned trial court after taking the entire evidence on record. As on date, I do not feel that custodial interrogation would be required from the petitioner since the facts are related to documentary evidence which are already in possession of the complainant and the others can be obtained from the Company. In light of these facts and

[2024:RJ-JD:11000]

[CRLMB-265/2024]

(3 of 3)

circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present matter. Needless to say, none of the observations made herein under shall affect the rights of either of the parties during trial and this Court refrains from commenting on the niceties of the matter.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Kudi Bhagtasani District Jodhpur City West in F.I.R. No.392/2023 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner 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

¶26

to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶27

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

¶28

(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

¶29

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

¶30

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶31

115-Mamta/-

Surya Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Prakash 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

Meghraj Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajan Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan

Abdul Razak Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohanram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jethpuri Vs State of Rajasthan