Allowed

Kalyan Sahay S/O Malaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Jul 2024CRLMB/5664/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner implicated as an attesting witness in a forgery and cheating case, noting that the original will had been recovered and civil litigation regarding its validity was already pending. The court imposed standard conditions including availability for interrogation and a prohibition on leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, with conditions to cooperate with investigation and not leave India.

Kalyan Sahay S/O Malaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:29754]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5664/2024

¶4

Kalyan Sahay S/o Malaram, R/o Badiyan Mohalla, Behind House Of Vishvpriya Nagar Advocate, Dausa, District Dausa.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna, PP Mr. Anshuman Saxena for complainant

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Judgment

¶12

16/07/2024

¶13

Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with F.I.R. No.518/2017, registered with the Police Station Kotwali (Dausa), District Dausa for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case merely on account of the fact that he is the attesting witness in the alleged Will which is said to be executed with the forged signature of the property owner. Counsel further submits that the alleged Will was executed in the year 2005 and the F.I.R. has been lodged in the year 2017, i.e. after 12 years of the alleged incident. Counsel further submits that the civil litigation has already been instituted so as to make challenge to the aforesaid Will. Counsel further submits that the

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:29754]

[CRLMB-5664/2024]

alleged original Will has already been recovered.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant have opposed the anticipatory bail application.

¶20

Counsel for the complainant submits that after verification of the Will from the F.S.L. it is found that forged signatures have been obtained on the Will and therefore the petitioner who is the attesting witness of the Will, obtained forged signatures. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶21

Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

It is not in dispute that the civil litigation has already been instituted in respect of challenge to the alleged Will and the petitioner is the only attesting witness in the aforesaid Will as the alleged Will has already been recovered.

¶23

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner..

¶24

Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Kotwali (Dausa), District Dausa in F.I.R. No. 518/2017 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to his satisfaction on the following

[CRLMB-5664/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:29754]

(3 of 3)

conditions:-

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

¶30

(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

¶31

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

¶32

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶33

DIVYA SAINI /210

Kalyan Sahay S/O Malaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyan Sahay S/O Malaram 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

Rajendra Kumar Jangid S/O Nand Kishore Jangid Vs Union of India

Milind Popat Gharge Vs Union of India

Jacky @ Zakir Mohammad S/O Imamuddin Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shyam S/O Govindsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Praveen Kumar Menawat S/O Shri Ramkaran Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Kumar Meena S/O Shri Ramkumar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan