Dismissed

Mahendra Kumar Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2024CRLMB/6419/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan addressed an anticipatory bail application under the Indian Penal Code. It dismissed the application for petitioner-1 upon his withdrawal. For petitioner-2 (Nathuram), the court dismissed the application prima facie, finding him an active architect of the alleged crime of cheating.

What did the court decide?

No relief; application dismissed as withdrawn for P-1 and devoid of merits for P-2.

Mahendra Kumar Tanwar Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:31645]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6419/2024

¶4

Mahendra Kumar Tanwar S/o Nathu Ram, aged about 33 Years, resident of Plot No 26, Sendara Road Moti Nagar, Padamawati Colony, Second Beawar, District Ajmer.

¶5

Nathu Ram S/o Hindu Ram, aged about 62 years, resident of Plot No 26, Sendara Road Moti Nagar, Padamawati Colony, Second Beawar, District Ajmer.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ram Prasad Singariya.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP.
	Mr. Ajay Kumar Vyas (for the complainant).

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Order

¶12

02/08/2024

¶13

This is an anticipatory bail moved on behalf of the petitioners in relation to F.I.R. No. 29/2023 of Police Station Pratap Nagar, District Bhilwara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

At the beginning of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for withdrawal of instant application in respect of the petitioner No.1-Mahendra Kumar Tanwar.

¶15

In view of the submissions, instant bail application is dismissed so far as petitioner No.1-Mahendra Kumar Tanwar is concerned.

[2024:RJ-JD:31645]

[CRLMB-6419/2024]

(2 of 4)

The present order is passed only in relation to the petitioner No.2-Nathuram.

¶20

Let me briefly mention the facts germane for disposal of present petition. F.I.R. allegations are that complainant, accused Mahendra Kumar Tanwar and Nathuram were already acquainted. Both the said accused told the complainant that due to their good relations with RPSC and other higher officials, they could get his son Amit appointed to a government service position. They introduced the other co-accused Arif Mohammad Pathan and Islam Khan alias Sanjay Khan in Bhilwara. On the pretext of securing a government job for Amit, Arif Mohammad Pathan and Islam Khan received Rs. 47,80,000/- through petitioners Mahendra Kumar Tanwar and Nathuram in Bhilwara on 15.07.2021. Later, they failed to arrange government job for Amit. When the complainant demanded the money back from the accused, they refused and threatened to kill him.

¶21

Learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that on alleged date of giving the money, Nathuram was not present in Bhilwara but had gone to a school outside Bhilwara. The complainant did not pay any amount to petitioners. Additionally, a settlement was once reached between the parties, however it could not be materialized later on. It is further argued that petitioners are innocent persons and present FIR filed against the petitioners is false and baseless; that the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a false case; that there is no record to show as to how ingredients of offences under Sections 406 and

[2024:RJ-JD:31645]

[CRLMB-6419/2024]

(3 of 4)

420 of IPC are made out against them besides other offences. Therefore, to protect their life and liberty, an order of anticipatory bail may be passed in their favour.

¶26

From the other side, learned Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have strongly objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that in absence of custodial interrogation, investigation in this case cannot be taken to its logical conclusion. They thus, prayed that in the facts of the present case, it is expedient that anticipatory bail application be dismissed.

¶27

I have appreciated the submissions advanced by the learned defence counsel and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and have carefully perused the material available on record.

¶28

Applying the dictum and parameters to the instant case as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs State Of Gujarat reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152 and after having heard both the sides at length and on perusal of the Case-diary as well as material on record, it appears prima facie that so far as case of other petitioner Nathuram is concerned, he is found to have played an active role in the crime of cheating and criminal breach of trust to complainant of the amount of Rs. 47,80,000/-. He is the main architect of present crime. He introduced the complainant to co-accused Arif Mohammad Pathan and Islam Khan @ Sanjay Khan and also

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:31645]

[CRLMB-6419/2024]

facilitated the payment of money by the complainant through him on the pretext of securing a government job by illegal means.

¶33

It is observed that the petitioners herein are involved in a serious crime. In my view, since the case is at the threshold and the investigations are underway, it will be practically scuttling the investigation in case the anticipatory bail is granted. It will also create hurdles in arriving at the truth. In view of settled principles, the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of prima facie opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶34

Resultantly, instant application for anticipatory bail in respect of petitioner No.1-Mahendra Kumar Tanwar is dismissed as withdrawn and the same is dismissed in relation to petitioner No.2-Nathuram being devoid of merits. Whatever discussed or observed hereinabove is only a prima facie view and shall not tantamount to any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶35

Copy of this order be emailed to the Station House Officer and Trial Court concerned.

¶36

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶37

87-Mohan/-

Mahendra Kumar Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar Tanwar 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

Sampat Singh Parihar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajshree Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandradevi Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarita Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohani Devi Vs State of Rajasthan