Rameshwar Lal Bagdi vs State Of Rajasthan

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

The petitioner apprehend his arrest in connection with FIR No.85/2017 of Police Station Sojat City, District Pali 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that as a matter of fact the allegation of issuing forged patta is against the then Sarpanch of Ghewarchand and not against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the year 2001, when the petitioner was working as Gram Sewak of the concerned Panchayat Samiti, he processed the file of Pulki Devi for the purpose of granting patta in lawful manner and after due approval of the Gram Panchayat, issued patta in her favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case though there is no link of the petitioner in commission of any crime.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application, however, submitted that as a matter of fact in the year 1996, when Pulki Devi applied for issuing of patta in her favour, the Gram Panchayat decided not to issue patta to her on the basis of objection raised by the complainant, however, later on, in the year 2001, when the petitioner was working as Gram Sewak, he in connivance with the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat issued patta in favour of Pulki Devi while ignoring objections of the Gram Panchayt raised earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the custodial interrogation is necessary, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner may not be granted.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

However, the petitioner is free to surrender before the trial court. It is expected that on his surrender, if any bail application is preferred on behalf of him, the trial court shall decide the same expeditiously strictly in accordance with law.