Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 819 (RAJ)

Sardul Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-03-12

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. 378/2018 of Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471and 120-B IPC. They have preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the complainant, her father Late Harbansh Singh was having a chunk of agriculture land in Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, which had been transferred by him in between her two brothers viz. Tarsem Singh and Kulwinder Singh by way of a will. It is alleged by the complainant that though her father Late Harbansh Singh had transferred a piece of land in favour of her brother Kulwinder Singh by way of will, however, the another brother Tarsem Singh had obtained signatures of her father, who was ill at that time and prepared a power of attorney on 02.06.2016 and thereafter also prepared an agreement to sell by her father in favour of petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioners had purchased the land through agreement to sell from Late Harbansh Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioners were not aware about the fact that the land, which they had purchased through agreement to sell from Late Harbansh Singh, was transferred by Late Harbansh Singh in favour of his son Kulwinder Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is the bonafide purchaser and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the witnesses of the agreement to sell, by which Late Harbansh Singh sold his land in favour of the petitioner No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that whatever the offences have been committed, the same have been committed by Tarsem Singh and the petitioners have nothing done wrong. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioners have hatched a conspiracy along with Tarsem Singh and illegally purchased the land belonging to brother of the complainant. 5. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioners have hatched a conspiracy along with Tarsem Singh and illegally purchased the land belonging to brother of the complainant. 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 petitioners 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 petitioners - (1) Sardul Singh S/o Ranga Singh, (2) Karaj Singh S/o Pisora Singh and (3) Kulveer Singh S/o Mukhtiyar Singh in FIR No. 378/2018 of Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar 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.