Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 740 (RAJ)

Rajendra Kumar Seth v. State of Rajasthan

2016-05-23

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This Criminal Misc. Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No. 182/2015 of Police Station, Kotwali, District Banswara for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that prior to filing of FIR No. 182/2015 of Police Station, Kotwali, District Banswara against the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 had lodged an FIR against the complainant and other persons in the year 2011 allegaing that the complainant and the other accused persons were not complying with the conditions of agreement to sell dated 10.06.2001, executed by the complainant in favour of the petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, he had committed the offence of cheating. It is submitted that in that FIR, the police had filed a final report while concluding that no offence was made out against accused persons and the said final report was accepted by the trial court, against which the petitioner No. 1 has preferred a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') and the same is still pending. It is also submitted that proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act are also initiated by the petitioner against the complainant and the same are pending. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that in counter to the FIR filed by the petitioner No. 1 and the proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, this present FIR has been lodged by the complainant levelling allegations that the petitioners had prepared forged agreement to sell dated 10.06.2001 in the year 2011 on a blank stamp paper. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the police has also filed an application under Section 211 Cr.P.C. before the trial court while alleging that the petitioner No. 1 has filed a false complaint against the complainant and other accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed that looking to the pendency of the various criminal cases involving the agreement to sell dated 10.06.2001, the petitioners are entitled to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed that looking to the pendency of the various criminal cases involving the agreement to sell dated 10.06.2001, the petitioners are entitled to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in fact the complainant has handed over the blank stamp paper to petitioner No. 2, who happened to be the nephew of petitioner No. 1, way back in the year 2001 as a security of the loan advanced by the petitioner No. 2 to one Bhalchandra Nagar. It is submitted that Bhalchandra Nagar has repaid the whole loan amount to the petitioner No. 2 but the blank stamp paper of the complainant has not been returned by him either to Bhalchandra Nagar or complainant. It is further submitted that thereafter, in the year 2011, the petitioner No. 1 along with his nephew and other persons had prepared a agreement to sell dated 10.06.2001 on the blank stamp paper of the complainant in relation to a land. It is argued that during the course of investigation, statements of Bhalchandra Nagar has been recorded by the police, wherein, he has stated that the complainant had handed over a blank stamp paper to the petitioner No. 2 as a guarantee to the loan secured by him. It is also argued that evidence of this nature is also available that the petitioners have prepared the agreement to sell dated 10.06.2001 in the year 2011 on the blank stamp paper of complainant. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, submitted that prima facie evidence of commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC is available on record and for that purpose the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. It is, therefore, prayed that the anticipatory bail of the petitioners is liable to be rejected. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 9. It is, therefore, prayed that the anticipatory bail of the petitioners is liable to be rejected. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 9. During the course of investigation the statements of Bhalchandra Nagar has been recorded by the police, wherein he has clearly stated that the blank stamp paper of the complainant was handed over to the petitioner No. 2 way back in the year 2001 and at that time, no such agreement was executed on the said stamp paper. 10. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the evidence available against the petitioners and after perusing the case diary and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners. 11. Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.