SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

L.C.BHADOO
Shiv Kumar Rathore – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:Shri Arun Kochar, Advocate.
For the Non-Applicant:Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

ORDER

L.C. Bhadoo, J.—Heard, Shri Arun Kochar, counsel for the applicant and Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. The accused/applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing him on regular bail in Crime No. 130/2007, Police Station Vishrampur, Distt. Surajpur, for offence punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Case of the prosecution is that wife of the accused/applicant namely Shakuntala Rathore has a piece of land ad-measuring 0.5 decimal at Kunj Nagar, Vishrampur and house has been constructed over the said land. On 4.3.2006 Shakuntala Rathore entered into an agreement for sale of the same with complainant Bal Kunwar and amount of Rs. 4,07,000/- was paid to her by the complainant and remaining amount of Rs. 93,000/- was to be paid. Later on, when complainant namely, Bal Kunwar went to Shakuntala Rathore and present accused/applicant (husband of Shakuntala Rathore) and approached them for transferring the house in the name of complainant, they refused and saying that the stamp on which agreement was written it very old. Then, the complainant lodged the complaint on which after

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top