The court must consider the nature of the offense, the evidence against the accused, and the likelihood of the accused misusing their liberty when deciding whether to grant anticipatory bail.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15748/2022

Prem Prakash Bidiyasar S/o Gyanendra Singh, Aged About 66

Years, B/c Jat, R/o Vill. Ransisar, Teh. Deedwana Dist. Nagaur.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate

assisted by Mr. Sampati Choudhary

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate assisted

by Mr. Rajendra Prasad

Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment / Order

03/01/2023

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the

petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.

103/2017, Police Station Makrana, District Nagaur for the offences

under Section 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present

petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is argued that

the petitioner neither prepared any forged documents of any

person for the purpose of cheating nor he used knowing it to be

forged. It is submitted that the purchaser of the land has only

mentioned address of the present petitioner and petitioner did not

produce any fake persons for the purpose of registration. It is

argued that a revenue suit with regard to the land in question was

filed by purchasers before the court of Assistant Collector,

(2 of 5)

[CRLMB-15748/2022]

Makrana for correction of entries in the revenue records which was

withdrawn and the complainant in order to grab the said piece of

land has filed the present FIR whereas, the complainant has no

locus standi to file the present FIR, therefore, in these

circumstances the anticipatory bail should be granted to the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on

the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharth Vs.

State of UP & anr. reported in (2021) 3 CriLR 1153 and order

dated 18.12.2014 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 53

of 2015 ‘Habeeb Khan Vs. State of Raj.’

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the

complainant argued that the present petitioner is the main

accused who bought the land belonging to Scheduled caste

category person by creating dummy purchasers and thereafter got

sanctioned mining lease in favour of his father and later on in

favour of his wife and received unlawful gains. The role of

petitioner is clear from the affidavits filed on behalf of alleged

purchasers Shivlal and Raju Ram in the revenue suit who were

identified by present petitioner Prem Prakash Bidiyasar. It is

argued that it is a clear case of fraud and deceit which is writ large

from the documents on record. Therefore, at this stage, no case

for grant of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone

through the material on record.

The allegation against the present petitioner is that he

purchased land through dummy purchasers Shiv lal, Raju and

Hanuta Ram and got sanctioned mining lease in favour of his

(3 of 5)

[CRLMB-15748/2022]

father Gyanendra Singh and thereafter in favour of his wife Smt.

Pushpa. Later on, upon cancellation of mining lease, in order to

grab the land, prepared forged documents of purchasers and filed

a suit for correction in the revenue record. The contention of the

petitioner is that petitioner neither prepared any forged

documents of any person for the purpose of cheating nor he used

knowing it to be forged. However, the police upon investigation

has found that the so called purchasers of land viz Shiv lal, Raju

Ram and Hanuta Ram were never in existence and it is the

petitioner who created these purchasers by forging documents

and at the time of filing of suit, submitted fake Aadhar Card of

Shiv lal and Raju Ram and claimed Raju Ram to have died. The

police in its investigation has foun