Smt. Indradevi Wife of Shivdayal, Vs State of Rajasthan

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 55/2024 registered at Police Station Vajirpur, District Gangapur City for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that for the same facts another FIR No. 235/2022 registered at police station Vajirpur, District Gangapur City was instituted by the complainant alleging pedigree of the petitioner with regard to deceased Raghunath Das. It is also contended that in that FIR police has already submitted negative final report, considering the fact that the civil suit before the Revenue Appellate Authority,

¶16

[2025:RJ-JP:33412]

¶17

[CRLMB-10217/2025]

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

Sawaiamdhopur, is pending. It is also contended that on the same set of facts present FIR has been lodged. The petitioner has not forged any document, he is legal heir of late Prahlad Das and Prahlad Das belongs to pedigree of deceased Raghunath Das. It is further contended that civil suit was dismissed by the SDM, Vajirpur without deciding the petitioner's claim about the disputed land under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the petitioner has challenged the findings before the RAA, Sawaimadhopur and RAA also dismissed the petitioner's appeal and the matter was challenged before the Revenue Board and the Revenue Board also dismissed the petitioner's appeal and the same was challenged before the High Court and the writ petition was dismissed and the restoration application of the said petition is still pending. The age of the petitioner is 74 years and she is a lady. Other co-accused Santosh Kumar, Jitendra Akodiya and Guddi Devi have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this court and the case of the present petitioner is akin to the other co-accused. It is further contended that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR, however the same was dismissed, thereafter petitioner was arrested on 24.06.2025. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are triable by Magistrate. The trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore the instant bail application of the accusedpetitioner may be allowed.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and contended that petitioner's suit for claiming the property was dismissed by the SDM court and thereafter subsequent appeal etc. were also

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:33412]

[CRLMB-10217/2025]

dismissed by the concerned Revenue Courts. The Hon'ble High Court also dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the order of Revenue Board. The petitioner has no claim over the disputed property. It is also contended that the petitioner and the other co-accused are not the legal heirs of late Raghunath Das. The petitioner and the other co-accused have forged the death certificate of Raghunathdas and thereafter sold the property through an agreement to co-accused Santosh Kumar, the first bail application of Santosh Kumar was also dismissed, however the second bail application was allowed after filing of the chargesheet. It is further contended that after executing an agreement with co-accused Santosh Kumar, petitioner filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapurcity incorporating the facts that she had no relation with the family members of late Raghunathdas, thus it is apparent that the petitioner knowingly sold the property of late Raghunathdas with an intention to claim the property of complainant and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to herself. The petitioner is the kingpin and created false death certificate of late Raghunathdas, so also claimed herself to be the legal heir of late Raghunathdas through Prahlad das. Prahlad das was in the pedigree of Raghunathdas. It is also contended that petitioner remained absent after lodging of the FIR and remained absconded for quite a long time and charge-sheet is yet to be submitted, therefore, considering the entire facts, the bail application of the accused-petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

¶25

Heard and perused the material available on the record.

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:33412]

[CRLMB-10217/2025]

It is not desirable for the court to express anything on the merits of the case. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady and is in custody since 24.06.2025 and investigation/filing of the charge-sheet may take considerable time, I deem it proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶30

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Smt. Indradevi Wife Of Shivdayal, in connection with FIR No. 55/2024 registered at Police Station Vajirpur, District Gangapur City shall be enlarged on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for her appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶31

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶32

ashu /94

Smt. Indradevi Wife of Shivdayal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Indradevi Wife of Shivdayal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin S/O Ramavtar Vs State of Rajasthan

Tularam Alias Tulla S/O Late Tejsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Jagarwal S/O Shri Onkarmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Lakhan S/O Goverdhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Arbaaz Khan @ Mota S/O Late Sukha Vs State of Rajasthan

Adil Khan S/O Deenmohammed Vs State of Rajasthan