Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1681 (RAJ)

Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-05-28

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No. 57/2018 of Police Station Rajnagar, District Rajsamand, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406 I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a complaint was filed by the complainant before the Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand alleging therein that the petitioners had sold their share of land to one Jafar Ahmed by putting his forged signatures on the agreement to sell. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners and the complainant are real brothers and their ancestral land was sold by their mother and grand-mother to one Jafar Ahmed in the year 2005 through agreement to sell. After execution of the said agreement to sell, the complainant filed complaint against the petitioners in the year 2018 in which it is alleged that the petitioners have forged his signatures on the said agreement. 4. It is argued that earlier the matter was thoroughly investigated by the police and they found that no case is made out against the petitioners, however, later on as per the directions of the concerned Magistrate, further investigation was conducted and the said agreement to sell was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of comparing the signatures of the complainant and after receiving the report to this effect that signatures of the complainant do not match with signatures done on the agreement to sell, the police is going to arrest the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as a matter of fact, the ancestral land of the petitioners and the complainant was sold to purchaser Jafar Ahmed as per consent of the complainant, but later on due to some family dispute, this FIR has been lodged against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioners are old aged persons and they have cooperated with the police during the course of investigation and in such circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioners are old aged persons and they have cooperated with the police during the course of investigation and in such circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having gone through the case diary, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners No. 1 Mohan Lal s/o Narain Lal Vyas and No. 2 Kishan Lal S/o Narain Lal Vyas in FIR No. 57/2018, Police Station Rajnagar, District Rajsamand, they shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:- (i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; (iii) They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.