NEETU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for bail under Sec. 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 Sec. 420 IPC. As per prosecution, the petitioners had taken Rs.4,00,000.00from the complainant on 22/1/2019, 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.5,00,000.00. Remaining Rs.1,00,000.00 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.

(2.) The allegation against the present petitioners is that after taking advance amount of Rs.4,00,000.00, the plot in question was sold by the petitioners on 17/9/2019, to one Rajendra Kumar Verma by accepting sum of Rs.7,00,000.00 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 dtd. 22/1/2019. Attention of the Court was drawn towards the agreement to sell dtd. 22/1/2019 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.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned order dtd. 13/4/2023 passed by the competent criminal court. This Court vide order dtd. 16/8/2023 directed learned Public Prosecutor to procure the case diary. In compliance of the order dtd. 16/8/2023, 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.4,00,000.00 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.7,00,000.00 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.