Dismissed

Rakesh Haritwal S/O Sh. Lakshman Haritwal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 May 2024CRLMB/754/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court of Rajasthan addressed anticipatory bail pleas filed by petitioners accused under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The court rejected arguments regarding civil disputes and prior cooperation, noting strong prima facie evidence of cheating and conspiracy based on prior sales and subsequent transactions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail applications of the accused petitioners were dismissed.

Rakesh Haritwal S/O Sh. Lakshman Haritwal Vs State of… — Money Laundering | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:25073]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15966/2023

¶4

Lakshminarayan Haritwal S/o Bharuram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 52, Sajaria, Tehsil- Sanganer, Distt- Jaipur (Raj).

¶5

Shyojiram Haritwal S/o Bharuram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Pradhan Ji Ki Dhani, Ramsinghpura Alias Rampura, Tehsil- Sanganer, Distt- Jaipur (Raj).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶9

Nitin Gilara S/o Gordhandas Gilara, R/o House No. 4, Rambhajo Jewellers, Pearl Premimu, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 754/2024 Rakesh Haritwal S/o Sh. Lakshman Haritwal, R/o Haritwal City, Pradhan Ki Dhani, Village Ramsinghpura Alias Rampura, District Sanganer, Jaipur Metropolitan, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mohit Khandelwal,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, Public Prosecutor.
	Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, Adv.
	Ms. Apeksha Tiwari,Adv.

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

24/05/2024

[2024:RJ-JP:25073]

[CRLMB-15966/2023]

(2 of 5)

Apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.228/2023, registered at Police Station Vidhayak Puri, District Jaipur (South), for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, the accused-petitioners have preferred these anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Prima facie offences under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC are not made out against the petitioners. The dispute between the petitioners and the complainant is purely civil. The petitioner Rakesh Haritwal and the complainant have had a cordial business relationship since 2013.

¶26

It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the offences under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC are purely triable by the Magistrate, and custodial investigation of the petitioners is not required. The petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the dispute regarding the petitioners and complainant was about 15 plots. These 15 plots were allotted to the complainant, but after that, the complainant was not entitled to take possession of the plots as the plots belonged to the LIG Category. On the direction of the JDA, the said plots were auctioned, and Patts’ were issued in favour of subsequent persons. The fact was within the complainant's knowledge, and the complainant remained silent for three years. The complainant did not try to get the Patts alloted from the JDA.

[2024:RJ-JP:25073]

[CRLMB-15966/2023]

(3 of 5)

It is also contended that after lodging the First Information Report, the petitioner Rakesh Haritwal has filed suit before the Civil Court for cancelling the Patts allotted to the complainant, and the Appellate Court passed an ad-interim order in favour of the petitioners. It is also contended that the said plots and the other 32 plots were sold to the three brothers of complainant Nitin Gilara. Therefore, considering the civil dispute between the parties, anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners may be allowed.

¶32

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶33

It is fervently argued that the petitioner, Rakesh Haritwal, sold the disputed plot to the complainant, Nitin Gilara, after receiving the transaction amount, and the petitioner executed a receipt accepting the said amount. It is also contended that an allotment letter was issued concerning all disputed plots. Petitioner Rakesh has not refuted this fact. It is also claimed that after that, petitioner Rakesh again sold the said plots to other persons after knowing that allotment letters about disputed plots had already been issued in favour of complainant Nitin Gilara in 2020. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioners cheated the complainant and sold the disputed plots to other persons again after obtaining a considerable amount from the complainant. It is also argued that petitioner No.2 Shyojiram and petitioner No.1 Lakshmi Narayan were well aware that allotment letters about the disputed plots had been issued in favour of the complainant, and they signed the said allotment letters as witnesses. They have

[2024:RJ-JP:25073]

[CRLMB-15966/2023]

(4 of 5)

again signed the lease deed as a witness in favour of other persons. There is ample evidence on record to show that after hatching conspiracy and obtaining massive amounts from the complainant, all three petitioners have sold the same plots to the other persons, thus causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves. Therefore, they are not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is also contended that after lodging of F.I.R., one accused, Rakesh Haritwal, filed a civil suit against the complainant and learned Civil Court vide order dated 18.03.2024 dismissed the temporary injunction application.

¶38

The trial court has recorded a specific finding that petitioners, after executing an allotment letter in favour of the complainant and obtaining the money from the complainant, have again sold the disputed plots to other allotees without informing the complainant. The trial court has also observed that the subsequent suits were filed only to evade the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the complainant. 9. The Learned Public Prosecutor submitted the factual report, and the same is taken on record. 10. Admittedly, the said plots were sold to the complainant by the petitioner Rakesh Haritwal. The petitioners Lakshminarayan Haritwal and Shyojiram Haritwal, who signed all the deeds as witnesses. It is also evident from the factual report that petitioner Rakesh Haritwal applied for getting the Pattas issued of the disputed land in favour of L.I.G. Category and obtained the Pattas’ of the same land issued in the name of different persons. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioners have not committed any offence. Similarly, petitioners Lakshminarayan Haritwal and Shyojiram

[2024:RJ-JP:25073]

[CRLMB-15966/2023]

(5 of 5)

Haritwal were also aware that the said plots had already been sold to the complainant-Nitin Gilara, and they have signed the Patta document issued in favour of other persons. This fact shows that both the petitioners were aware of the fact that these plots had already been sold to the complainant, and despite knowing the truth, they again signed the lease deeds showing themselves as witnesses in favour of other persons. The entire factual narration shows that petitioners are hand in gloves caused wrongful gain to themselves and loss to the complainant. Therefore, considering the above fact, this Court does not find that petitioners are not involved in the alleged crime. Prima facie, enough material is on record to indicate that petitioners have committed an offence under Section 420 of IPC.

¶43

Therefore, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Hence, the anticipatory bail applications of the accused petitioners are dismissed.

¶44

A copy of this order be separately filed in each matter.

¶45

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶46

Ramesh Vaishnav/86

¶47

33-34

Rakesh Haritwal S/O Sh. Lakshman Haritwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Haritwal S/O Sh. Lakshman Haritwal 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

Mangi Lal S/O Devaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharulal S/O Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pushpendra Singh @ Bhoora S/O Shiv Ganesh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Lakshminarayan Haritwal S/O Bharuram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Suraj Singh Sisodiya S/O Shri Rajendra Singh Sisodiya Vs State of Rajasthan

Soumya Das W/O Shri Mihir Diwakar Vs the State of Rajasthan