PURAN MAN SAINI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submtis that third bail application has been filed in view of the fact that despite of allegation against Mahaveer singh Shekhawat, netiher he has been arrested nor challan has been filed. This is moreso when, the allegation for issuance of 'patta' is against Bhagwana ram and not against the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner has not received any amount towards land transaction, hence petitioner looking to the above, petitioner may be granted bail. It is stated that petitioner had invested a sum of Rs. 70 lacs in regard to the land business and the said amount was given to mahendra Singh, who has already been granted bail, as the challan was not filed in time and that circumstance needs to be taken into consideration to release the petitioner on bail.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has opposed this bail application in the presence of superintendent of Police, Jaipur (North ). It is stated that so far as Mahaveer Singh Shekhawat is concern, in investigation he is found to be an accused, however, for the reasons that file was transferred to different investigation Officers in view of the representation made by Madhuri Singh (Complainant), necessary arrest could not be made but now, the efforts would be made for Mahaveer Singh Shekhwat also. It is stated that so far as Mahendra Singh is concern, an application for cancellation of bail would be moved before District and session Judge pursuant to the provisions of Section 439 (2) of Cr. P. C. It is further stated that an application for cancellation of bail was moved against him directly before the High Court, however, the same was not pressed in view of the fact that the application for cancellation of bail is required to to moved first before the District and Session Judge.