Allowed

Aasu S/O Shri Sumer Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2025CRLMB/1491/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail for forgery offences under Sections 467 and 468 IPC, alleging false implication and that the main allegation was against co-accused Deen Mohammed, the actual beneficiary. The court found custodial investigation unnecessary and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; release on arrest on furnishing personal bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, subject to stated conditions.

Aasu S/O Shri Sumer Khan Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:6334]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1491/2025

¶4

Aasu S/o Shri Sumer Khan, R/o Khatiwas Police Station Tapukda Tehsil Tijara Distt. Khairthail-Tijara Rajasthan.

¶5

Shermohammad S/o Naththu, R/o Shekhpur Jatt Police Station Tijara Distt. Khairthail-Tijara, Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Hanish Khan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP
	Mr. Chandra Shekhar

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶12

Order

¶13

13/02/2025

¶14

Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No. 13/2024 registered at Police Station Tapukda, District Bhiwadi for the offence(s) under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC, the petitioners have preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS.

¶15

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. The main allegation is against other co-accused Deen Mohammed, who has already been enlarge on regular bail by this court. He further submits that custodial investigation of the accused petitioners is not required. The petitioners are not the actual beneficiary to the alleged transaction but co-accused Deen Mohammed is the actual beneficiary. The petitioners were not aware that Deen Mohammed

[CRLMB-1491/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:6334]

(2 of 3)

has forged the document, petitioners signed the agreement as witnesses. The matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate. Petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation.

¶20

Pursuant to the interim order petitioners appeared before the concerned investigating officer, therefore the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners may be allowed.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application and submits the factual report. 4. Considering the overall allegations levelled in the FIR and contentions made by the counsel for the parties. The Main allegation of forging the document is against other co-accused Deen Mohammed. The petitioners are not the actual beneficiary but they have signed the alleged forged document as witnesses. The matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate and custodial investigation of the petitioners is not required. The petitioners have already appeared before the concerned investigation officer. Therefore, considering the above facts, without expressing anything on merits / demerits of the case and looking to the fact that custodial investigation of the present petitioners is not required, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioners.

¶22

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners- 1. Aasu S/o Shri Sumer Khan, 2. Shermohammad S/o Naththu, in connection with FIR No.13/2024 registered at Police Station Tapukda, District Bhiwadi they shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of

(3 of 3)

[CRLMB-1491/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:6334]

Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶28

(ii) that the petitioners 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶29

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

¶30

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶31

Ashu /13

Aasu S/O Shri Sumer Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aasu S/O Shri Sumer Khan 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

Kaptan S/O Lachhi Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Salim Khan S/O Shri Babu Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar S/O Rajnarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramlakhan S/O Ramcharan Vs State of Rajasthan

Soma @ Jaikishan Jadaun S/O Shri Chandrabhan Singh Jadaun Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Aarif S/O Jamaluddin Vs State of Rajasthan