Dismissed

Shankar Lal Sharma S/O Shri Chhitarmal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Mar 2025CRLMB/13241/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed bail applications filed by four accused persons facing charges of forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. The Court found that the petitioners had connived to execute forged documents and caused substantial financial loss to the complainant, rendering them ineligible for bail at the investigation stage.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shankar Lal Sharma S/O Shri Chhitarmal Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:10774]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13240/2024

¶4

Pooja W/o Hari Singh, R/o Jhirana, Police Station Peeplu, District Tonk, At Present Tenant 43-A, Shram Path, Mansarovar, Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶5

(At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13241/2024 Shankar Lal Sharma S/o Shri Chhitarmal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Ramsar, Palawala, Police Station Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 625/2025 Bhanwar Lal Sharma @ Bhanwar Pandit S/o Shri Omprakash Sharma, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Kapadiyawas Kalan, P.s. Mauzamabad, District Dudu.

¶17

(At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶18

----Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶21

----Respondent

¶22

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1539/2025 Ramavtar S/o Kalyan Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ramsar Ki Dhani, Police Station Tunga, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶23

----Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶26

[2025:RJ-JP:10774] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-13240/2024] ----Respondent

¶27

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Anshuman Saxena, Adv.
	Mr. Avtar Singh Rathore, Adv. Mr. Chandrahas Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Jay Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Garvit Saraswat, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP
For Complainant	: Mr. Gopal Gupta, Adv.

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order

¶29

10/03/2025

¶30

These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioners. The accusedpetitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.226/2024, registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, District Jaipur (West), for the offence(s) under Sections 384, 406, 416, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of IPC.

¶31

It is contended on behalf of the accused petitioner-Pooja that the petitioner has falsely been implicated for the offences under Section 384, 406, 416, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of IPC. It is argued that for the offence under Section 419 of IPC maximum punishment provided is of three year. The petitioner is behind the bars since 09.10.2024 and the charge-sheet has already been produced before the concerned Court. It is also contended that the petitioner-Pooja is neither the beneficiary nor caused any wrongful loss to anyone. The petitioner was not aware about the transactions, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner-Pooja may be allowed.

¶32

It is contended on behalf of the accused petitioner-Bhanwar Lal Sharma that the petitioner-Bhanwar Lal Sharma has falsely

[2025:RJ-JP:10774]

[CRLMB-13240/2024]

(3 of 5)

been implicated in this case. It is also contended that the petitioner has not forged any document as the petitioner is not the signatory to both the disputed agreements dated 04.11.2023 and 30.01.2024. The petitioner is behind the bars since 26.10.2024 and the charge-sheet has already been submitted, the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by Magistrate, no recovery of any documents were effected from the accused petitioner, therefore the bail application of the petitioner may also be allowed.

¶37

It is contended on behalf of the accused petitioner-Shankar Lal that the petitioner-Shankar Lal Sharma did not execute the documents dated 04.11.2023 and 30.01.2024. The petitioner is neither the beneficiary nor caused any wrongful loss to the complainant. The petitioner is a 61 year old person and he has not received any amount from the complainant Hemant Kumar, the petitioner is behind the bars since 03.10.2024 and the chargesheet has already been produced before the concerned Court, therefore the bail application of the petitioner may also be allowed.

¶38

It is contended on behalf of the accused petitioner-Ramavtar Sharma that the petitioner Ramavtar Sharma has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further contended that the petitioner has not impersonated himself as Mohan Lal. The petitioner’s Aadhar Card was used by other accused Bhanwar Lal and he in connivance with the other co-accused misused the photo copies of the petitioner’s Identity Card. The petitioner- Ramavtar Sharma did not receive any amount from the complainant, the petitioner is behind the bars since long, trial of the case may take considerable

[2025:RJ-JP:10774]

[CRLMB-13240/2024]

(4 of 5)

time and the charge-sheet has already been produced before the concerned Court, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may also be allowed.

¶43

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the grant of bail applications. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner-Ramavtar impersonated himself as Mohan Lal and sold the said property to the complainant. The petitioner received Rs.86,70,000/- from the complainant, the other accused petitioner namely- Bhanwar Lal, Shankar Lal and Pooja were also present at the time of execution of the documents. The petitioner-Pooja impersonated herself as Bhuri Devi. It is also contended that Mohan Lal and Bhuri Devi are the original owners, and they in their statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have clearly stated that they have not sold their property to the complainant. It is also contended that all the accused-petitioners were hand in gloves with each other in causing wrongful loss to the petitioner. It is also argued that the petitioner Bhanwar Lal was the kingpin in manipulating all the documents and in the statement of the witness Hari Narain, it has clearly been stated that the petitioner alongwith the other co-accused Sunil Pareek supplied him the copies of Aadhar Card of Mohan Lal, Shankar Lal and Bhuri Devi and the said documents were sent him through WhatsApp. They also informed that these documents are required for executing the agreement to sale, therefore, considering the grave allegations levelled against the petitioners, the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed.

(5 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:10774]

[CRLMB-13240/2024]

Heard and perused the material available on the record.

¶48

It is alleged against the petitioners that they in connivance with each other executed forged documents dated 04.11.2023 and 30.01.2024. The petitioner Ramavtar represented himself as Mohan Lal and sold the said property to the complainant Hemant. The other accused petitioners namely- Pooja and Shankar Lal put their signature on the said documents as witnesses, the investigation further reveals that petitioner Pooja represented herself as Bhuri Devi, who is the actual co-sharer of the said property. The Investigation also reveals that the petitionerBhanwar Lal was also present at the time of executing document and got all the identity cards printed from E-mitra Kendra as the owner of the E-mitra kendra in his statement rendered under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., has clearly stated that he received the documents of Bhuri Devi, Shankar Lal through WhatsApp. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not involved in the alleged crime. The accused-petitioners caused huge loss of Rs. 86,70,000/- to the complainant and deceitfully sold the property of Mohan Lal and Bhuri Devi. The original owners were also deceitfully cheated, therefore, considering the entire material available on record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused petitioners on bail.

¶49

Accordingly, these instant bail applications are hereby dismissed.

¶50

A copy of this order be separately placed in each matters.

¶51

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶52

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-51-54

Shankar Lal Sharma S/O Shri Chhitarmal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shankar Lal Sharma S/O Shri Chhitarmal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishvendrasingh S/O Makkhansingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Vishnoi S/O Shri Hariram Jaani, Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram Mahnta S/O Beerendra Nath Vs State of Rajasthan

Devid Dhawan S/O Deepchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Devraj S/O Kajod Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak S/O Sh. Ramswaroop Vs State of Rajasthan