Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 167 (RAJ)

Vedprakash Paladiya v. State of Rajasthan

2011-01-21

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2011
Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is second bail application filed by the accused-petitioner against the order dated 5.5.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Ajmer in FIR No. 100/2009 registered at Police Station, Pushkar, District Ajmer for the offence under Section 420 IPC. 3. The instant criminal case was initiated on lodging of a first information report at Police Station, Pushkar on 30.6.2009. During the course of investigation, the petitioner moved an anticipatory bail application before the learned District Judge which came to be dismissed on 21.1.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the High Court Bench at Jaipur but without any success as the same was rejected on 26.2.2010. Subsequently, when the petitioner was arrested, he moved an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., before the learned District Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 9.3.2010. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner moved an application for bail before the High Court but the same was also dismissed on 18.3.2010. Later on, the petitioner again moved an application before the learned District Judge which was allowed on 6.4.2010. The informant had then moved an application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C., before the learned District Judge for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. The said application was allowed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer on 21.4.2010. Challenging the order of cancellation of bail, the petitioner moved a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., before the High Court. The counsel for the accused-petitioner had prayed for withdrawal of the criminal misc. petition with the liberty that as and when the petitioner surrenders before the Court concerned, it shall decide the same in accordance to law. Therefore, the criminal misc. petition came to be dismissed on 30.4.2010, as being withdrawn with the liberty sought by the petitioner. 4. In the meanwhile, the investigation was completed and challan came to be filed against the accused-petitioner on 3.4.2010, before the concerning Magistrate at Pushkar, for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Thereafter charge has come to be framed against the petitioner, for the said offence, on 28.10.2010. The order of charge is said to have been challenged by the accused by filing a criminal revision petition before the learned Sessions Court, Ajmer. Thereafter charge has come to be framed against the petitioner, for the said offence, on 28.10.2010. The order of charge is said to have been challenged by the accused by filing a criminal revision petition before the learned Sessions Court, Ajmer. Likewise, the complainant, feeling dissatisfied with the order of framing charge, has also filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. 5. The instant second bail application had come to be filed by the petitioner in the month of May, 2010, after his bail application having been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer on 5.5.2010. The informant Smt. Narbada Puri disciple of Mahant Late Shri Brahmpuri, aged 75 years, R/o Sanatan Vedant Vidhalya Brahmpuri Adaivat Sant Ashram, Badi Basti, Pushkar lodged a report on 30.6.2009 at Police Station, Pushkar. It is stated in the report that the informant has an agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 1173 and 1174 at Pushkar, District Ajmer. Accused Ved Prakash had been visiting the Ashram since long and as such the informant started relying and having faith in him. Further, it is stated in the report that as the petitioner was in need of some money that she wanted to sell a part of the land for which an agreement came to be executed on 24.1.2008. The consideration of sales, as mentioned in the agreement, was fixed for Rs. 1,44,00,000/-. According to the informant, the accused-petitioner had assured that she would be first paid Rs. 6 lacs, out of the aforesaid consideration, and the remaining amount would be deposited after the execution of the sale deed and on opening of mutation. The accused had also assured the informant that he would obtain no objection certificate from the concerning authority. According to the report, in the month of March, 2008 the informant wanted to sell a part of the property to her nephew (daughter's son) Yogesh for which the accused had assured that the registered sale deed would be executed through the Sub-Registrar, Pisangan who is known to him and do the needful at the Ashram. He further assured the informant that he is in contact with other persons like deed writer etc who would also prepare the sale deed in favour of Yogesh. According to the informant, she had fully relied upon the assurance given by the accused. He further assured the informant that he is in contact with other persons like deed writer etc who would also prepare the sale deed in favour of Yogesh. According to the informant, she had fully relied upon the assurance given by the accused. Thereafter, the clerk of the office of Sub-Registrar, Pisangan came to the Ashram on 28.3.2008 alongwith the accused, Mohammad Khalik, Ratan Singh and Pushkar Narain. Further, she has stated that when she was made to put her signature and thumb impression on the registered sale deed executed in favour of Yogesh that her signature and thumb impression were also got done fraudulently by thee accused on other papers also which came out to be a registered sale deed in favour of the accused-petitioner, in respect of the land for which the agreement was executed on 24.1.2008. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner and his companions came to the Ashram on 25.6.2009 and wanted to forcefully dispossess the informant claiming that the land belongs to them. Subsequently, the informant gave a notice to the accused through her Advocate on 16.6.2009 and a reply of the same was received from Shri Ashok Mathur, Advocate for the accused-petitioner, on 24.6.2009 wherein it was mentioned that the sale deed had been executed in favour of the accused-petitioner on 28.3.2008. 6. On the aforesaid report, the instant first information report came to bee registered and the investigation was concluded on 2.4.2010 and a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused person. On perusal of the evidence on record, collected during the course of investigation, it is revealed that the informant Mahant Narbada Puri, aged about 75 years is living in Sanatan Vedant Vidhyalay Brahampuri, Adaivat Ashram, Badi Basti at Pushkar alongwith her daughter, son-in-law, nephew and niece. As per the investigation, in the land bearing Khasra No. 1173 a residential house of the information is in existence wherein she is living alongwith her family members. The land in question being situated at a prominent place in the town of Pushkar, the real value of the same is very high. Further, it has been revealed from the evidence on record that the accused is having the business of property dealing and also trading in flowers. 7. The land in question being situated at a prominent place in the town of Pushkar, the real value of the same is very high. Further, it has been revealed from the evidence on record that the accused is having the business of property dealing and also trading in flowers. 7. As the informant was in need of money, she wanted to sell a part of her land for which an agreement to sell was executed on 24.1.2008, duly notarized and the consideration for the same was Rs. 1,44,00,000/-. The registered sale deed of the said land was got executed on 28.3.2008 through Sub-Registrar, Pisangan for a consideration of Rs. 6 lacs, at the time when another sale deed was got registered in the name of Yogesh for a consideration of Rs. 5 lacs. Thereafter, the accused got mutation of the land in question opened at Tehsil Pushkar on 10.4.2008. The accused had also submitted a demand notice dated 20.4.2009 of the Electricity Board in respect of an electricity connection. It was with the intention to take forceful possession of the land that the accused came with his companies and police on 25.6.2009. The accused himself had lodged a complaint which was sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and an FIR No. 109/10 was registered for the offences under Sections 463, 465, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B IPC. Though the accused had disclosed, during the interrogation, that he had paid the consideration of the said sale but no evidence whatsoever was submitted or collected during the investigation so as to show that the amount of consideration was given to the informant from time to time. Moreover, according to the accused, he had paid the amount of consideration of Rs. 6 lacs in cash but according to the registered sale deed the amount of consideration is said to have been paid by cheque. It is also noteworthy that during the course of investigation, the accused had also got a notice published in the daily newspapers `Navjyoti and Rajasthan Patrika' on 2.10.2009 that the registered sale deed had been dropped somewhere in the area of Purani Mandi, Ajmer. 8. It is also noteworthy that during the course of investigation, the accused had also got a notice published in the daily newspapers `Navjyoti and Rajasthan Patrika' on 2.10.2009 that the registered sale deed had been dropped somewhere in the area of Purani Mandi, Ajmer. 8. In view of the above and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as revealed from the aforesaid evidence on record collected during the course of investigation, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that no case for reconsideration of question of bail to the petitioner is made out. 9. Consequently, the second bail application is dismissed.