Allowed

Batturam Saini S/O Revdram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 May 2024CRLMB/3057/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to Batturam Saini under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences of cheating and forgery, noting the matter is exclusively triable by a Magistrate and the petitioner submitted an affidavit renouncing title claims over disputed land.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged petitioner on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Batturam Saini S/O Revdram Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:23153]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3057/2024

¶4

Batturam Saini S/o Revdram, R/o Barkheda, Police Station Malakheda, Dist. Alwar. (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Prakash Chand Thakuriya
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Suresh Kumar, PP,
	Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar for complainant

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

16/05/2024

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.42/2024 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar (Jaipur City East), District Jaipur City (East) for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate. He further submits that petitioner has submitted the affidavit containing the fact that he would not claim any title over the disputed land and shall get the gift deed & patta cancelled. The affidavit containing the above fact is taken on record. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since long and

[2024:RJ-JP:23153]

[CRLMB-3057/2024]

(2 of 2)

trial/investigation of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the bail application.

¶20

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶21

Considering the fact that the matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate and petitioner has submitted the affidavit containing the fact that he would not claim any title over the disputed land and shall get the gift deed & patta cancelled, thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Batturam Saini S/o Revdram in connection with FIR No.42/2024 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar (Jaipur City East), District Jaipur City (East), 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 and as and when called upon to do so.

¶23

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶24

Keshav/17

Batturam Saini S/O Revdram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Batturam Saini S/O Revdram 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

Anil S/O Late Sh. Laxminarayan Mali Vs the 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

Mahesh Kumar S/O Sh. Ajit Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Amit Kumar S/O Mangeram Vs State of Rajasthan

Lekhraj Harshawat S/O Shri Jagdish Kumar Harshat Vs State of Rajasthan