Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2214 (RAJ)

Ram Niwas v. State of Rajasthan

2011-10-14

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 129/2009 registered at the Police Station, Padukallan, District Nagaur, for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant. Perused the case diary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are advocates and petitioner No. 1 made an execution of sale deed on the basis of a registered power of attorney given by Mahaveer Raj, Smt. Bidam Kanwar, Manju and Sunita. He submits that Mahaveer Raj is the son of Shri Navratan Mal and on the death of Navratan Mal, the property was devolved upon his heirs, i.e. wife, son and daughters. It is submitted that Navratan Mal's son Mahaveer Raj and his wife Smt. Bidam Kanwar, along with two ladies were presented as the daughters of Navratan Mal came to the office of the Sub-Registrar for execution of power of attorney and as such the petitioner Ram Niwas could not have any suspicion regarding genuineness of the executant as the mother and the brother of the ladies were accompanying them. He submits that acting on such registered power of attorney, the petitioner No. 1 sold the land to his nephew. He further submits that as a matter of fact the petitioner's nephew is the person who has been cheated because now the case has been built up that the first informant and her sister was also having share in the property whilst petitioner Ram Niwas could have never known that the ladies who were presented in the office of the Sub-Registrar at the time of execution of the power of attorney were not the sisters of Mahaveer Raj. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. 5. This Court is of the opinion that petitioner No. 1 Ram Niwas was acting on the basis of the registered power of attorney executed before the Sub-Registrar and at the time of execution of the document, undisputedly two of the actual heirs of deceased, namely Mahaveer Raj (son) and Smt. Bidam Kanwar (wife of the deceased) were present before the Sub-Registrar. Therefore, it is doubtful as to whether the petitioner No. 1 could have known that the two other ladies, who were present before the Sub-Registrar for execution of the power of attorney, were not the sisters of Mahaveer Raj.5A. I have perused the statements of complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well and in this statement also, the first informant has not mentioned that the petitioners knew her personally or had ever met her. 6. Undisputedly, the first informant was living at Jodhpur whilst the petitioner No. 1 is an Advocate practicing at Merta and the petitioner No: 2 is also an Advocate who is practicing at Ajmer and unless it was a specific case of the complainant that the petitioners knew her before hand then, it cannot be inferred that knowingly that the executant's of the power of attorney were not genuine persons, petitioners participated in the transaction of registration of the power of attorney. 7. The petitioner No. 2 is only an attesting witness to the power of attorney. 8. Having considered all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Ram Niwas Bhanwariya S/o Shiv Lal and (2) Shivkaran S/o Mohan Lal, in connection with F.I.R. No. 129/2009, Police Station, Padukalla, District Nagaur, the petitioners shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on the following conditions : (1) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required, (2) They 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 to any Police Officer, and (3) They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court. Bail application allowed. *******