Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1840 (RAJ)

Sunita Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2013-10-18

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2013
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner Smt.Sunita Devi under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 89/2013 registered at Police Station Banipark, Jaipur lodged against the accused petitioner and her husband and on Ramesh Singh for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC lodged by India Bulls Housing Finance Limited registered office F60 Second Floor Malhotra Building Canaught Palace and Branch office M-4 Sangam House Church Road Jaipur and against the order dated 9.10.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 14, Jaipur Metropolitan rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioner in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 81/2013. 2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that India Bulls Housing Finance Limited through Sandeep Kumar, complainant, filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No. 17 Jaipur Metropolitan under Section 190 Cr.P.C. against the accused petitioner and her husband Narendra Kumar Shah and also against one Ramesh Singh resident of 261 J.P. Colony Naya Khera Jaipur for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC stating therein that the accused petitioner, her husband and Ramesh Singh contacted the Branch office of the India Bulls for purchasing plot No. 71 Balaji Vihar Yojna and in this respect one agreement dated 20.6.2011 was shown and on producing the original papers of the plot Rs. 7,10,000/- was sanctioned to the accused petitioner and her husband. The husband of the accused petitioner and accused petitioner started paying monthly installments. On 4.12.2012 when the husband of the accused petitioner and the accused petitioner approached, and the employee of the India Bulls went to JDA along with the original papers came to know that the said plot is not of Ramesh Singh accused, but it belongs to other Ramesh Singh. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused petitioner, her husband and Ramesh Singh caused loss to the company and benefiting themselves in a fraudulent manner. The said act of the accused petitioner and other two persons comes within the ambit of sections 420, 467, 471 and 120 B IPC. Since the forgery was done in the office of the sub Registrar, they contracted the Police Station Banipark but the FIR was not registered hence the company filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No. 17 Jaipur Metropolitan. Since the forgery was done in the office of the sub Registrar, they contracted the Police Station Banipark but the FIR was not registered hence the company filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No. 17 Jaipur Metropolitan. The Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) to the Police Station Banipark Jaipur and the Police Station Bani Park on finding that on the basis of the complaint a case under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC is made out and hence they registered the above FIR No. 89/2013. 3. Apprehending her arrest, the accused petitioner filed bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 14 Jaipur Metropolitan, who after hearing the accused petitioner and the APP concerned and on perusing the record, rejected the bail application vide order dated 9.10.2013. Hence this bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner has argued that the petitioner has not committed any offence which is punishable with death or life imprisonment. The petitioner is innocent person she has been falsely implicated in this criminal case and the plot in question has been purchased through registered document by cheque from Ramesh Singh. The complainant has submitted complaint after lapse of 6 months. There is no installments is remaining to be paid. No recovery is pending against the accused petitioner. The petitioner is a 39 year old lady and she is suffering from gynecologic problem and except the petitioner there is no female member in the family to look after her children. After came into the knowledge, the husband of the petitioner has also lodged a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3 Jaipur on 7.1.2013 against Ramesh Singh, Broker Ajay Singh, Ram Dayal and employees of India Bulls Ashvin Hada Credit Manager and Sales Manager Ali. 5. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. He has stated that the Additional Sessions Judge after perusing the case diary has rightly rejected the bail. The petitioner and her husband obtained a loan of Rs. 7,10,000/- from India Bulls in order to benefit themselves. The offence alleged in the complaint is made out against the accused petitioner, hence she is not entitled to the benefit of section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. The petitioner and her husband obtained a loan of Rs. 7,10,000/- from India Bulls in order to benefit themselves. The offence alleged in the complaint is made out against the accused petitioner, hence she is not entitled to the benefit of section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the order dated 9.10.2013 rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioner, the same read as under: ^^eSaus mi;qZDr ijLij fojks/k rdksZ ij fopkj fd;kA ifjoknh dh fjiksVZ ij /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471] 120 ch Hkk-n-la- esa izdj.k iathc) fd;k x;k gSA vc rd ds vuqla/kku ls ;g ik;k x;k gS fd vfHk;qDr }kjk jes'kflag ds IykaV ua- 71 ckykth fogkj 9 vkoklh; ;kstuk ds dwVjfpr nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij bf.M;k cqYl gkmflax QkbZusal ls yksu ysdj djhc lkr yk[k :i;s dh /kks[kk/kM+h djus ds xaHkhj vijk/k ds vk{ksi gSA pwafd izdj.k vHkh vUos"k.kk/khu gS] blfy, bl LVst ij izdj.k ds xq.kkoxq.k ij vf/kd foospu fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gS] ysfdu izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa vkSj vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks vfxze tekur dh lqfo/kk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA** 7. I have gone through the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and without commenting on the merits of the case looking to the fact that accused petitioner with the connivance of her husband and one Ramesh Singh fraudulently took loan of Rs. 7,10,000/- from India Bulls on a plot of other persons, is not entitled to be given the benefit of section 438 Cr.P.C. at this stage when the investigation in the case is pending. 8. In view of the above, I do not think it proper to accept this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner. The bail application stands dismissed.