AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 213 wordsThe present anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.1067/2019 registered at Police Station
Mansarovar, Jaipur City (South) for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of IPC.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. He is innocent person and suffering from Fatal Liver
problem. He was only convener of the society. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per agreement, petitioner was not owner of the
land. So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the anticipatory bail application.
Allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner had sold plots No.125 and 126 to the complainant. During investigation, record was
taken by Investigating Officer. As per record, plot No.125 was not allotted to anyone and plot No.126 was allotted to Baljit Singh. Petitioner had not
returned the advance amount taken by him. He had taken Rs.20 lac from the complainant. Investigating Officer in his factual report clearly stated that
custodial interrogation is required for recovery of documents and money. So, looking to the gravity of offence, I am not inclined to allow the
anticipatory bail application.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.