BHARAT KUMAR PANCHAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anoop Dhand for the applicant, Mr. G.S. Gautam for the complainant and Ms. Soniya Shandilya, the learned Public Prosecutor, for the State.

(2.) Mr. Anoop Dhand has submitted that initially by agreement dated 3.3.2012 the complainant had sold the property to co-accused Narayan Lal through an agreement to sell. According to the agreement, the property was sold to the co-accused for a sum of Rs.3 lac, but the co-accused has paid Rs.1.50 lac to the complainant. It was agreed that the remaining amount would be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. However, the complainant did not get the sale-deed registered. Instead, on 14.3.2012 he sold the same property to Smt. Mali Devi. Since the complainant was not getting the sale-deed registered, on 14.2.2014 the co-accused Narayan Lal filed a civil suit for specific performance. He also filed a criminal complaint against the complainant on 11.2.2014. As a counter blast to the legal remedies persued by the co-accused, the present FIR was lodged by the complainant, Kailash Chand Kabra on 9.3.2014. The allegation against the present applicant is that he is an attesting witness of the agrteement to sell dated 3.3.2012. Moreover, even if the allegations are taken to be true, the allegations are against the co-accused Narayan Lal, and not against the present applicant. Thus, no case is made out against the present applicant for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Gautam, the learned counsel for the complainant, and the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.