Allowed

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

Rajasthan HC16 May 2024CRLMB/4347/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in a cheating case (IPC Sections 420, 406, 120-B). The court noted that custodial interrogation was not required and the offences were triable by Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in Rs. 25,000 each on conditions of availability for interrogation and not leaving India without permissi

Lekhraj Harshawat S/O Shri Jagdish Kumar Harshat Vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:23326]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4347/2024

¶4

Lekhraj Harshawat S/o Shri Jagdish Kumar Harshat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 1217, Harshawat Bhawan, Nursinghpura, Faisagar Road, Ajmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ankur Tomar Mr. Saurabh Pareek
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Bhawani Shankar Sharma-PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶10

Order

¶11

16/05/2024

¶12

Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.32/2021 registered at Police Station Christanganj, District Ajmer for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC, the petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The matter pertains to the year 2021 and Police after investigation has submitted negative final report, thereafter the matter is again directed to be further investigated. The agreement to sell between the petitioner and complainant for disputed property was executed on 23.09.2019. The case under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC is not made out against the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation.

[CRLMB-4347/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:23326]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel further submits that custodial interrogation of petitioner is not required, therefore, the anticipatory bail of accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application.

¶19

I have considered the overall allegations levelled in the FIR and contentions made by the counsel for the parties. 5. It is admitted that FIR was instituted against the petitioner under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC in the year 2021 and thereafter, Police has proposed the negative final report and after that, the matter was directed to be further investigated. The offences committed by the petitioner are exclusively triable by Magistrate, without expressing anything on merits/demerits of the case and looking to the fact that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not required, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner.

¶20

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- Lekhraj Harshawat S/o Shri Jagdish Kumar Harshat, in connection with FIR No.32/2021 registered at Police Station Christanganj, District Ajmer, 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:-

¶21

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

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:23326]

[CRLMB-4347/2024]

(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

¶26

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

¶27

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶28

28-Rahul Joshi

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekhraj Harshawat S/O Shri Jagdish Kumar Harshat 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

Batturam Saini S/O Revdram 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