Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1745 (RAJ)

Kamlesh Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

2019-06-03

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 19/2012 of Police Station Hiran Magri, Udaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant and also perused the material available on record. 3. Mr. Anand Purohit, learned Senior Advocate submits that the petitioner is a clerk working in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Grains), Udaipur, who has drawn a note-sheet on 28.03.2011, inter-alia, recording that three partners of firm M/s Kalulal Mohanlal Pandwal, have produced a Dissolution-Deed. He submits that note-sheet in question had been drawn on the basis of documents produced by the partners of the said firm bona fidely. In the facts obtaining in the present case, neither any offence, nor criminal conspiracy can be attributed to him. 4. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused, rather the main accused against whom allegation of preparing of forged Dissolution-Deed was levelled, have been enlarged on bail and no recovery is required to be made from the petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor is not a in position to controvert the above mentioned contentions and fairly accepts that no recovery remains to be made from the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposing the bail submits that the petitioner has initiated the note-sheet on 28.03.2011, whereas the Dissolution-Deed in question was notarized on 22.04.2011, hence in absence of a valid dissolution deed, he should not have drawn the note-sheet dated 28.03.2011. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in totality and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner, namely, Kamlesh Mathur S/o Shankarlal Mathur, in connection with FIR Ho.19/2012 of Police Station Hiran Magri, Udaipur, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner, namely, Kamlesh Mathur S/o Shankarlal Mathur, in connection with FIR Ho.19/2012 of Police Station Hiran Magri, Udaipur, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on the following conditions:- (1) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before a police officer as and when required; (2) that the petitioner 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 of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; and (3) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.