Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 681 (RAJ)

Vipin Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

2019-02-27

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 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. 324/2017 of Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 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 against the petitioner is to the effect that he along with his mother and wife sold 43 Bighas of land to the complainant party, which is falling in Khasra Nos. 10/3 and 10/3/3 of village Kaparda, District Jodhpur. It is further alleged that after entering into an agreement regarding the above mentioned transaction with the complainant party in the year 2013, the petitioner again sold 13 Bighas of land of Khasra No. 10/3 of village Kaparda, District Jodhpur to one Sunil Bhandari and 13 Bighas of land of Khasra No. 10/3/2 of village Kaparda, District Jodhpur to one B.L. Choudhary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant party has alleged that as the petitioner sold 26 Bighas of land to the above named persons in the year 2015, he along with other co-accused persons committed cheating with the complainant party. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a matter of fact it is not in dispute that the petitioner sold 30 Bighas of land of Khasra No. 10/3 of village Kaparda, District Jodhpur through a sell agreement to the complainant party in the year 2013 and also sold 13 Bighas of land of Khasra No. 10/3/3 of village Kaparda, District Jodhpur to them simultaneously. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the revenue record, it is clear that the Khasra No. 10/3 of village Kaparda, District Jodhpur consists of 43 Bighas of land. It is argued that as the petitioner and other co-accused persons have agreed to sell 30 Bighas of land out of those 43 Bighas of land, the remaining 13 Bighas of land is available with the petitioner and other co- accused persons and they have every right to sell the same to any other party. It is argued that as the petitioner and other co-accused persons have agreed to sell 30 Bighas of land out of those 43 Bighas of land, the remaining 13 Bighas of land is available with the petitioner and other co- accused persons and they have every right to sell the same to any other party. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as there was no agreement with the complainant party to sell the land of Khasra No. 10/3/2 of village Kaparda, District Jodhpur, the grievance of the complainant party of selling the land of said Khasra is without any basis. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that from a bare reading of the FIR, it is clear that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant party is purely of civil nature, however, the complainant party is trying to give criminal color to the said civil dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation before the police and was also interrogated by the Investigating Officer, therefore, he is not required for any custodial interrogation. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that as a matter of fact the petitioner has sold 13 Bighas of land of Khasra No. 10/3 out of those 30 Bighas of land, which has been sold to the complainant party. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that as a matter of fact the petitioner and other co-accused persons has received around Rs. 1,55,00,000/- to the complainant party but despite that they have sold their share of land to some other person and as such the petitioner and other co-accused persons have committed the offence of cheating and misappropriation of money. 7. After perusing the case diary, it is an admitted position that the agreement to sale was executed by the mother of the petitioner in favour of the complainant party in the year 2013 thereafter the mother of the petitioner sold 26 Bighas of land to two persons in the year 2015. 7. After perusing the case diary, it is an admitted position that the agreement to sale was executed by the mother of the petitioner in favour of the complainant party in the year 2013 thereafter the mother of the petitioner sold 26 Bighas of land to two persons in the year 2015. Now the question remains that whether the land sold by the mother of the petitioner in the year 2015 is the same land which was sold to the complainant party or not and the police during the course of investigation have not given any definite answer in this regard. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, 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. 9. 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 - Vipin Gupta S/o Dhani Ram in FIR No. 324/2017 of Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur 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.