Amar Singh @ Lalaram S/O Shri Hariram Vs the State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:31703]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8748/2025

¶4

Amar Singh @ Lalaram S/o Shri Hariram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Dhani Sukal Ki, Tan Pahari, Police Station Behror Sadar, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Alwar).

¶5

Mannalal @ Munna S/o Shri Ramjilal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Mohalla Jaitpura, Ward No. 4, Behror, Police Station Behror Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Alwar).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Ashvin Garg with Hem Bhushan Vedi &
	Mr.	Nonit Hatila
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vikas Sharma
	Mr.	VijaySingh Yadav,PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Order

¶13

13/08/2025

¶14

This instant application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the applicant-accused Amar Singh @ Lalaram S/o Shri Hariram and Mannalal @ Munna S/o Shri Ramjilal in FIR No. 182/2022 dated 05.03.2022 registered at P.S. Behror -Bhiwadi, whereby the applicant-accused has charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.

[2025:RJ-JP:31703]

[CRLMB-8748/2025]

(2 of 6)

The applicants were arrested on 05.04.2025 and are in judicial custody since then. The Court below has dismissed the bail application.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1 Amar Singh has filed a civil suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sale dated 20.06.2013 wherein learned Additional District Judge No.1, Behror has granted interim injunction (T.I.) on 22.11.2022, and appeal is pending before this Hon’ble Court. He further submits that at the time of grant of injunction learned Additional District Judge has observed that the respondentRamavtar is in habit to make different signatures at different times. He also submits that afterwards a criminal report is registered by Ramavtar on 05.03.2022 and during investigation, police has arrested applicant Amar Singh @ Lalaram who is plaintiff in civil suit and Mannalal @ Munna S/o Shri Ramjilal who is attesting witness. He further submits that after arrest of applicant-accused Amar Singh, the possession of disputed land has changed the hands with connivance of police and the complainant has procured the possession.

¶20

Learned counsel for applicants further referred the investigation in the matter and submits that police has no authority in a matter where a civil misc. appeal (CMA) is pending before this Hon’ble Court against confirmed TI order and matter is subjudice before the Civil Court. He further referred application dated 29.06.2023 made by SHO, P.S. Behror to learned Additional District No.1 and order dated

[2025:RJ-JP:31703]

[CRLMB-8748/2025]

(3 of 6)

10.08.2023 whereby a permission has been granted to police for examination of document which is in dispute before the Civil Court. Further, he submits that the investigation relating to present applicants-accused are complete and is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation. He further assures that in case, the applicantsaccused is required for further investigation, the applicantsaccused will be available for such investigation. He also submits that the investigation and trial will take its own time and no purpose will be served by keeping the applicantsaccused in custody.

¶25

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant.

¶26

Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the agreement in question was examined by FSL and report of FSL clearly indicate that the signature of Ramavtar is forged and on basis of this report these petitioners were arrested. He further submits that even learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the bail application of these applicants.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

¶28

On basis of a complaint dated 05.03.2022, lodged by complainant Ramavtar to P.S. Behror about forgery and fabrication of agreement dated 20.06.2013, FIR No. 182/2022 was registered at P.S. Behror and matter is investigated by Sub-Inspector-Ram Chandra. During investigation, disputed agreement to sale is handed over to

[2025:RJ-JP:31703]

[CRLMB-8748/2025]

(4 of 6)

police by order of learned Additional District Judge No.1 dated 10.08.2023 and same is sent to FSL. The investigation is conducted by Rajesh Sharma (Police Inspector) and after report of FSL both the applicants were arrested and they are in custody. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Behror has dismissed the bail application on 03.07.2025. The material on record indicate that a civil suit No. 04/2022 is filed on 04.01.2022 by Amar Singh on basis of disputed agreement along with TI application.

¶33

Learned Additional District Judge No.1, Behror has decided TI application on merits on 22.11.2022 in favor of Amar Singh. A specific observation on prima facie case is referred by learned counsel for applicant. Aggrieved from order dated 22.02.2022, Ram Avtar (complainant herein) as filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 329/2023 before this Court and same is pending for consideration wherein notices were issued on 29.08.2023.

¶34

Having considered a serious dispute about execution of agreement to sale and possession of the land as raised before this Court during course of argument, I am of the considered view that looking to facts and circumstances of the case this is a fit case wherein indulgence of bail is required to be granted.

¶35

Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the applicants-accused are no more required in the investigation and they are in custody for quite some time. The further proceedings will take its own time, therefore, looking to entirety of facts and circumstances of

[2025:RJ-JP:31703]

[CRLMB-8748/2025]

(5 of 6)

the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant-accused.

¶40

Thus, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicants-accused Amar Singh @ Lalaram S/o Shri Hariram and Mannalal @ Munna S/o Shri Ramjilal is hereby allowed and the applicants-accused are ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:-

¶41

(i) The applicants-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner.

¶42

(ii) The applicants-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law.

¶43

(iii) The applicants-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court.

¶44

(iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicants-accused shall be liable to be canceled.

¶45

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail.

¶46

Before parting the order, it is necessary to refer order dated 17.09.2024 in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 485/2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jodhpur wherein FIR filed by complainant was quashed by invoking

(6 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:31703]

[CRLMB-8748/2025]

power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The facts clearly indicate that without assigning a proper ground of arrest these applicants were arrested by police in a matter where a civil suit is pending prior to registration of FIR.

¶51

Every policeman who is arresting any person has to ensure compliance of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vihaan Kumar vs The State of Haryana and Ors. 2025 INSC 162. No Police Inspector or SHO is competent to arrest any person without strict compliance of law of the land.

¶52

Similarly, in a matter relating to civil dispute registration of a criminal case and continuing the investigation in such a manner is a serious interference in the administration of justice but we are refraining ourselves so that the issue herein is not affected on merits.

¶53

It is appropriate that the DGP of Rajasthan should take note of the circumstances in the instant case and take appropriate steps so that in future without compliance of law no such action is repeated.

¶54

It is expected from the DGP, Rajasthan to apprise this Court about action taken by him within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶55

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶56

MONU KAMRA /24

Amar Singh @ Lalaram S/O Shri Hariram v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh @ Lalaram S/O Shri Hariram v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkishore Meena @ Raju Meena S/O Late Shri Lalluram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

David S/O Dharasingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Riyazudeen S/O Mehrajudeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Chand Sharma S/O Laduram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Modi S/O Late Sh Prakash Raj Modi Vs State of Rajasthan

Peyush Bhardwaj S/O Ramesh Chand Vs State of Rajasthan