Neetu And Others vs State Of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Mathur, J

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.499/2022 registered at Police Station Savina, Udaipur, for offence under Section 420 IPC.

As per prosecution, the petitioners had taken Rs.4,00,000/-from the complainant on 22.01.2019, as advance consideration for sale of their plot bearing No.199, situated in Block D, Hiranmagri Sector 9, Residential Colony, Udaipur. The total consideration against aforesaid sale was Rs.5,00,000/-. Remaining Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of registry of the aforesaid plot in favour of complainant. As per prosecution, an agreement was duly signed by the petitioners and the complainant in this regard.

The allegation against the present petitioners is that after taking advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, the plot in question was sold by the petitioners on 17.09.2019, to one Rajendra Kumar Verma by accepting sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as consideration for the plot in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in a criminal case. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner No.2 had taken some loan from the complainant and for that purpose, blank cheques as well as blank stamp papers and few blank papers, signed by petitioner No.2 were handed over to the complainant as security. Learned counsel submitted that by misusing the aforementioned documents, the complainant had drafted a forged agreement to sell dated 22.01.2019. Attention of the Court was drawn towards the agreement to sell dated 22.01.2019 to contend that the agreement has been typed on the blank stamp papers, containing signatures of petitioner No.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the disputes between the parties are purely of civil nature; custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessitated in the present case; no recovery is due to be made from the present petitioners, therefore, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application seeking anticipatory bail.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the competent criminal court.

This Court vide order dated 16.08.2023 directed learned Public Prosecutor to procure the case diary. In compliance of the order dated 16.08.2023, case diary has been produced before this Court.

From the perusal of the FIR and case diary, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioners with dishonest intention entered into an agreement with the complainant and obtained Rs.4,00,000/- for sale of their plot. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioners at the time of making registry of the plot in question, in favour of one Rajendra Prasad Verma after accepting Rs.7,00,000/- as consideration, were knowing fully well that they had already made an agreement of sale with the complainant and had also accepted a huge sum of money.

This Court from the perusal of the case diary, also finds that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required to unearth the modus operandi of the commission of the crime. That apart, huge sum of money is also to be recovered from the petitioners. The validity or genuineness of a document (agreement to sell dated 22.01.2019) cannot be gone into by this Court while deciding anticipatory bail of the accused persons particularly when the investigation in this regard is yet to be made from accused persons by the investigating agency.

In wake of aforesaid, the instant application seeking anticipatory bail stands rejected.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.