Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1283 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh Sankhla v. State of Rajasthan

2016-09-02

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2016
ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. The allegations in the FIR pertains to Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 2. The allegation is that on the basis of a fake patta amount was taken from the complainant. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the case against the petitioner Mahendra Sankhla is similar to that of Mohammad Yusuf and Zakheer Khan who have been granted bail by the Sessions Court. The contention of learned counsel for Abdul Jabbar is that he has also been shown to be present with the other accused and no specific role has been assigned to him except that he threatened that if the amount is not paid the law may change and then it would be difficult to get the sale deed registered. 3. Learned counsel for Lalit Deyal Mathur has argued that there is allegation that his signature are stated to be there on the fake patta. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor have argued that admittedly the patta is fake as is apparent from the seal put on the patta. The same bears signatures of lalit Deyal Mathur and the same has been sent to hand writing expert and the report is awaited. With regard to Mahendra Singh Sankhla the contention is that he was the main accused and from the FIR it is apparent that he was the main commission agent and it was at his behest that agreement was executed and he was instrumental in receiving the money from the complainant. With regard to Abdul Jabbar, the contention is that he is a Munshi who posed himself as an advocate to cheat the complainant and to extract money from the complainant. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. In the agreement to sale there is a signature of Mohd. Yusuf and Zakeer Khan and in the FIR it is alleged that Mahendra Singh, Mohammed Yusuf and Zakeer Khan all went to the complainant and assured him that they will obtain patta from the JDA. It has come in the FIR that on their assurance the complainant parted with money, the allegation against Mohammed Yusuf and Zakeer Khan are akin which are against Mohammed Yusuf and Zakeer Khan, the allegation against them was that they were witness to the agreement to sale. 6. It has come in the FIR that on their assurance the complainant parted with money, the allegation against Mohammed Yusuf and Zakeer Khan are akin which are against Mohammed Yusuf and Zakeer Khan, the allegation against them was that they were witness to the agreement to sale. 6. The allegation against Abdul Jabbar is to the effect that he threatened the complainant that if the registry is not executed immediately, the law may change and then it will be impossible to get the sale deed registered. 7. Considering the fact that the four persons have been granted bail in this case and case of the Mohd Yusuf and Zakeer Khan is akin to that of Mahendra Singh, I am inclined to grant bail to Mahendra Singh Sankhla and Abdul Jabbar. However, as far as Lalit Dayal Mathur is concerned, his signatures are stated to be there on the fake patta and the matter is still with the hand writing expert to ascertain whether the same bears the signatures of Lalit Dayal Mathur, further there is yet another case against Lalit Dayal Mathur bearing case No. 91/2010, considering the same, I am not inclined to grant bail to Lalit Dayal Mathur. His bail application is accordingly rejected. 8. Consequently, the bail application of Mahendra Singh Sankhla and Abdul Jabbar are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Mahendra Singh Sankhla S/o Shri Ramchandra Sankhla (2) Abdul Jabbar S/o Shri Abdul Gaffar arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 123/2015 of Police Station Boranada, District Jodhpur shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. Bail allowed to M and A but refused to L.