High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramgopal Ratadiya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 22 February 2017 · Citation: (2017) 02 MP CK 0260

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ved Prakash Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1514 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

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

19 paragraphs · 358 words

Ved Prakash Sharma, J

This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by petitioner Ramgopal Ratadiya, who apprehend his arrest in Crime

No.491/2016, Police Station-Agar, District -Agar for offence under Sections 419,420,467,468,470 and 471 of the IPC.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Allegedly, one Chander impersonating himself as Ramchandra executed 3 saledeeds concerning agricultural land belonging to Ramchandra, in favour

of Pushpa Bai, Bindu and Ritu. The present petitioner is Patwari of the concerned area and the allegation against him is that he was also part of the

conspiracy pursuant to which Chander executed 3 saledeeds impersonating himself as Ramchandra.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has not played any direct or indirect role in execution of the saledeeds and that only allegation

is against him that he was associated with the mutation proceedings after registration of the saledeeds. In this regard attention of this Court is invited

to the Enquiry Report prepared by the Sub Divisional Officer. It is also submitted that co-accused Sanjay Choukhe, who was the Sub-Registrar at the

relevant time and before whom saledeeds were registered has already been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 21/10/2016 passed in M.Cr.C.

No. 10542/2016.

Though, the prayer for anticipatory bail is opposed by the learned public prosecutor as well as by the learned counsel for the complainant, however,

considering the nature of allegation as well as the material available in the case-diary so also the fact that there is no allegation against petitioner

regarding his involvement in execution of these forged saledeeds, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to

enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail

Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest by Police in the aforesaid case, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal

bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer for

his regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial.