Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1866 (RAJ)

Ram Singh Sishodiya v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-02

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No. 19/2012 of Police Station Heeranmagari, District Udaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. He has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation levelled in the complaint against the petitioner is to the effect that he being Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Udaipur in the year 2011 illegally executed a lease-deed in favour of the accused persons despite objections were raised on behalf of the complainant. It is argued that the petitioner issued lease-deed in favour of the accused persons on the basis of documents submitted by them. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not aware that the documents submitted by the accused persons were forged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that whatever the action had been done by the petitioner was done bonafidely and there was no intention on his part to cheat anyone. It is submitted that there is no iota of evidence collected by the police during the course of investigation that the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed this Court that pursuant to the direction given by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 13.06.2019, the petitioner has already joined the investigation and interrogation from him has already been done. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case there is no requirement of custodial interrogation from the petitioner, therefore, he is entitled to be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner hatched a criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons and illegally executed lease-deed of shops situated in the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Udaipur though specific objections were raised by the complainant. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner hatched a criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons and illegally executed lease-deed of shops situated in the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Udaipur though specific objections were raised by the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner being Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Udaipur is responsible for whatever the illegal action had been taken in the office and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing 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 petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner - Ram Singh Sishodiya S/o. Late Shri Tej Singh Kalvi in FIR No. 19/2012 of Police Station Heeranmagari, District Udaipur he shall be enlarged on bail provided he 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) He shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) He 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) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.