Ashok Dasot S/O Shri Ummedmal Dasot Vs State of Rajasthan

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.58/2015, registered at Police Station Sodala, District Jaipur City (South), for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accusedpetitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is entirely of civil nature. The prima facie offence under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC is not made out and the petitioner has not cheated the complainant. The complainant has not filed any suit for specific performance rather resorted to the criminal proceedings and the present criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[2025:RJ-JP:30036]

¶18

[CRLMB-6384/2025]

¶19

is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is also contended that the petitioner is in custody since long and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted the factual report, the same is taken on record. The factual report shows that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with the complainant and received an amount Rs.34,50,000/- and also handed over the property to the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner on subsequent date sold the same property to other person and also received the consideration amount. The factual report also shows that the petitioner remained absent for more than 10 years and the petitioner was declared absconded and standing warrant was issued against the petitioner under Section 37 of the Police Act and the same is also pending against the petitioner. The petitioner is not turning up in those cases despite issuance of standing warrant and the charge-sheet was submitted way back in the year 2017 under Section 299 of Cr.P.C., therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

¶21

Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. The conduct of the petitioner shows that the petitioner remained absent for more than 10 years, further the allegations levelled in the FIR are of grave nature and the petitioner has received an amount Rs.34,50,000/- from the complainant and thereafter, sold the same property to other person, therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

[2025:RJ-JP:30036]

[CRLMB-6384/2025]

(3 of 3)