Allowed

Ajay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Harinarayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 May 2024CRLMB/3073/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by two accused apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 120-B IPC over allegations that a Will was forged. Noting the 2017 FIR, prior interrogation and negative final report, and that custodial interrogation was not required, the court allowed the application subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; release on furnishing personal bond Rs.50,000 each with two sureties Rs.25,000 each, subject to stated conditions.

Ajay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Harinarayan Sharma Vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:22773]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3073/2024

¶4

Ajay Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Harinarayan Sharma, Aged About 72 Years, R/o C-83, Shyam Marg Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.

¶5

Rameshwar Lal Sharma S/o Shri Salagram Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Plot No. 22, Adarsh Vihar, Niwaru Link Road, Niwaru Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. C. G. Chopra-PP Mr. Anurag Sharma
	Mr. Harsh Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶12

Order

¶13

14/05/2024

¶14

Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No. 276/2017 registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, District Jaipur (West) for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 467 & 120-B of IPC, the petitioners have preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Learned Senior counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the FIR was lodged in the year 2017, alleging that complainant’s brother Mahesh Sharma and present petitioners, after hatching conspiracy, forged the Will

[2024:RJ-JP:22773]

[CRLMB-3073/2024]

(2 of 4)

by putting forged signatures of complainant’s mother. Learned Senior counsel further submits that on the said FIR, Police conducted investigation and thereafter proposed final report. On the complaint of complainant, the matter was re-opened and thereafter, Police has reached to the conclusion that the Will was forged. He further submits that civil litigation between the parties is pending. Whether the Will is forged or genuine, it is a disputed question of fact. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the said Will was examined by the Expert T. S. Kapoor and after examining the Will, contrary finding was given. The other co-accused Mahesh Sharma has already been enlarged on regular bail. The custodial interrogation of petitioners is not required, therefore, the anticipatory bail of accused-petitioners may be allowed.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant vehemently oppose the bail application.

¶21

Learned counsel for the complainant argues that petitioners, in conspiracy with main accused Mahesh Sharma, forged the Will of complainant’s mother and the said Will was filed in a civil suit. The said Will was examined by Expert and after examining the documents, it was opined that the signature on the said Will was forged. Learned counsel further submits that the said Will was examined by the expert with the undisputed handwriting of executant. Learned counsel submits that petitioners are absconding and the learned trial Court has recorded the finding at para No.7 of its order. Learned counsel for complainant places his reliance on the judgment passed in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous

[2024:RJ-JP:22773]

[CRLMB-3073/2024]

(3 of 4)

(petition) No.6136/2019 passed in Satish Badaya Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr decided on 24.02.2021 .

¶26

I have considered the overall allegations levelled in the FIR and contentions made by the counsel for the parties. 6. It is admitted that FIR was lodged in the year 2017 and thereafter, petitioners were interrogated and final negative report was proposed. The matter was again reopened and after investigation, it was found that the alleged Will was forged. It is not denied by the petitioners that they have not put their signatures on the alleged Will. Whether the Will was forged or not, is a question of fact. The petitioners claim that the Will is genuine, whereas, complainant alleges that the Will is forged. The matter pertains to the year 2017. Petitioners have already been interrogated by the Police and custodial interrogation of petitioners is not required, therefore, considering the above facts, without expressing anything on merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioners.

¶27

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 petitioners- Ajay Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Harinarayan Sharma & Rameshwar Lal Sharma S/o Shri Salagram

¶28

Sharma, in connection with FIR No. 276/2017 registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, District Jaipur (West), they shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes 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

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:22773]

[CRLMB-3073/2024]

Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶33

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

¶34

(ii) that the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶35

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

¶36

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶37

28-Rahul Joshi

Ajay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Harinarayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Harinarayan Sharma 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

Cases cited

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

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

Bhupindar Singh S/O Sravan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

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