Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2032 (RAJ)

MIRZA IKTEDAR BAIG v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-09-11

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Petitioner has filed this bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 2. F.I.R. No.500/2016 was registered at Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. 3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the erstwhile ruler sold the land measuring 1300 bighas in village Lal was, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur by a registered sale-deed to SMS Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. on 20.9.1963. In 1960 erstwhile ruler allotted 30 bighas of land for cultivation to one Pritam Singh. Pritam Singh sold the land on 26.2.1975 to the complainant. It is contended that Pritam Singh had no right to sell the land as the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate Act, 1963 came into force on 13.4.1964 and 1.9.1964 was declared as date on which the land would stand acquired and vests in the State. It is contended that prior to the enactment of the above Act, ex-ruler has sold the property to SMS Investment Corporation Pvt.Ltd. from whom the present petitioner purchased the land. 4. It is contended that the matter went-up to the High Court and the High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.500/2009 and other connected appeals have held that the land measuring 1300 bighas belongs to SMS Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. It is also contended that charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the petitioner is in custody for last more than six months. 5. Counsel for the complainant and the Public Prosecutor have opposed the bail application. 6. It is contended by the counsel for the complainant that he had a registered sale-deed in his favour executed by Pritam Singh. It is contended that the petitioner has entered into various agreements with the ex-ruler which goes to show that he was not the owner of the land. It is contended that the complainant was not a party to the litigation before the High Court and the matter is pending before the Apex Court. 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 9. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 9. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.