Back
GANESH RAM MEENA
Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kashiram Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. These four bail applications have been filed by the accused petitioners under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 0013/2024 dated 08.04.2024 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG, for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and section 66D of the Information & Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, hence same are being decided by this common order.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 08.04.2024, Satnam Singh, Addl. Superintendent of Police, SOG, Jaipur submitted a written report, which runs as under:
On the basis of aforesaid written report, an FIR bearing no. 13/2024 dated 08.04.2024 was registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), ATS & SOG under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. and under Section 66-D of the Information & Technology Act.
3. Mr. Vipin Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner/Rakesh Kumar Sharma submitted that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a poor person and he is not running any printing press or works therein and he
The court emphasized that serious allegations of forgery and cheating warrant denial of bail, especially when they undermine the integrity of recruitment processes.
The seriousness of the offence, prima facie evidence, and the possibility of tampering with evidence are crucial factors in deciding bail applications in cases involving grave offences.
The court denied bail based on substantial evidence of collusion and deceit among the accused-petitioners in executing forged documents, causing significant financial loss.
The court determined that insufficient evidence against the accused, alongside prolonged custody, justified granting bail despite prior similar allegations.
Petitioner’s role in alleged offence, fact that till date no amount has been recovered from petitioner and in case petitioner, at this stage, is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with prosecution evide....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
