Allowed

Vimla Devi W/O Ramsingh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Nov 2024CRLMB/6705/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, who was apprehended to be arrested for forgery and cheating. The court found no need for custodial investigation and deemed it proper to grant bail with personal bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, subject to conditions of interrogation, no inducement, and no exit from

Vimla Devi W/O Ramsingh Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:46616]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6705/2024

¶4

Vimla Devi W/o Ramsingh, R/o Tela Gaon, Panchudala, P.S. Pragpura, District Kotputli-Behror.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

11/11/2024

¶13

Apprehending her arrest in connection with FIR No.63/2021 registered at Police Station Pragpura, District Jaipur Rural for the offence(s) under Sections 120-B, 420, 467 and 471 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 petitioner has falsely been implicated under Sections 120-B, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC. It is alleged against the petitioner that she has obtained forged patta of Gram Panchayat and thereafter claimed her possession over the land. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that 300 forged pattas were issued by the Gram Panchayat and in the investigation, the said record of issuing of Pattas were not traced out. The present accusedpetitioner is bona fide purchaser and she was not aware of the fact that somebody has forged the patta. The accused-petitioner being

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:46616]

[CRLMB-6705/2024]

lady has co-operated with the investigation and further she is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the present petitioner may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application of the present accused-petitioner and has submitted the facual report, which is taken on record.

¶20

The factual report shows that after examination of the original patta, in the FSL, signatures of other co-accused Rajendra Gurjar was not found on the patta. The accused petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Agency and custodial investigation of the accused-petitioner is not required.

¶21

It is not desirable to express whether the patta was forged by the present accused-petitioner or not. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.

¶22

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 accused-petitioner- Vimla Devi W/o Ramsingh, in connection with FIR No.63/2021 registered at Police Station Pragpura, District Jaipur Rural, she shall be released on bail, provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) that the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as

[2024:RJ-JP:46616]

[CRLMB-6705/2024]

(3 of 3)

and when required;

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶29

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

¶30

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶31

MR/140

Vimla Devi W/O Ramsingh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimla Devi W/O Ramsingh 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

Sangeeta @ Chipakli W/O Sukhveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Hariram S/O Kalyansahay Vs State of Rajasthan

Waqar Yonus S/O Shri Abrar Qureshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Suhail Singh Bhatia S/O Shri Parvinder Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranjana D/O Hukum Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Kumar S/O Lal Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan