Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1614 (RAJ)

Chotha Ram son of Hukma Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2016-11-16

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2016
ORDER : 1. The petitioner has moved this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. The allegation in this FIR pertains to offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 3. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the present petitioner has obtained loan by submitting genuine documents. He has appeared before the investigating officer and has submitted the property documents. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. His contention is that at the time of taking loan, the present petitioner has submitted fake documents, which do not tally with the documents submitted by him before the investigating officer. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 6. Considering the fact that there is allegation of obtaining loan by submitting fake documents, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. 7. Consequently, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed.