Dismissed

Ankit Sharma @ Rahul Sharma S/O Shri Sitaram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Dec 2024CRLMB/6464/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Ankit Sharma regarding charges of forgery and cheating under IPC Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, and 471. The court rejected the application due to the petitioner's absconding status and the execution of a warrant for his arrest.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; accused petitioner remains in custody as per warrant.

Ankit Sharma @ Rahul Sharma S/O Shri Sitaram Sharma… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:49669]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6464/2024

¶4

Ankit Sharma @ Rahul Sharma S/o Shri Sitaram Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 48-A, Sirsi Road, V.i.t.t. Vihar, R.f.c. Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, PP, Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Mr. Virendr Agrawal

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

03/12/2024

¶13

Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.298/2022 registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur City (East), District Jaipur City (East) for the offence(s) under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC, the accused-petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused-petitioner has forged the insurance policies and has received an amount of Rs.5,950/-. The accused-petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount to the concerned Insurance Company. It is further contended that custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner is not required,

[2024:RJ-JP:49669]

[CRLMB-6464/2024]

(2 of 3)

therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the accusedpetitioner may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent(s) vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application. It is contended by learned counsel for the insurance company that the accused-petitioner has forged 09 insurance policies in the name of the insurance company and has obtained amount from the insurers. It is also contended that the case was registered against the accused-petitioner in the year 2022 and the accused-petitioner is absconding till date and in order to substantiate the above contentions, the factual report has been placed before this Court. In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

¶20

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶21

Considering the allegations that the accused-petitioner has forged the insurance policies and has issued them to insurers without any authority and thereafter obtained huge amount from the persons cheated. The police has found involvement of the accused-petitioner for offences under Section 420, 406, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC. The factual report also reveals that the warrant issued under Section 37 of the Police Act was obtained to arrest the accused-petitioner, but the same remained unexecuted as the accused-petitioner was not found to be at the place of his ordinary residence. The factual report also reveals that after the issuance of the warrant under Section 37 of the Police Act, statement of Police Officials who went to the place of accused-petitioner

[CRLMB-6464/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:49669]

(3 of 3)

residence to execute the arrest warrant, was recorded and thereafter, standing warrant was issued against the accusedpetitioner. The FIR pertains to the year 2022 and the accusedpetitioner is still absconding. The charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner has already been produced under Section 299 of Cr.P.C., to prosecute him under Section 420, 406, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, therefore, considering the above facts, I am not inclined to enlarged the accused-petitioner on anticipatory bail. 6. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the accusedpetitioner is hereby, dismissed.

¶26

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶27

Keshav/217

Ankit Sharma @ Rahul Sharma S/O Shri Sitaram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Sharma @ Rahul Sharma S/O Shri Sitaram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak S/O Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammed Anish Khan S/O Mohammed Amin Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmlal @ Dharmi Son of Late Shri Ramprasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Kundar @ Kundan S/O Bacchulal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sapat Khan S/O Rahim Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Prasad S/O Late Shri Ramkishore Vs State of Rajasthan