Bail was granted because the charge-sheet omitted forgery charges, the matter is triable by a Magistrate, the accused has been in custody for a long time, and there is pending civil litigation regarding the property.

Order

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 70/2023, registered at Police Station Ramnagariya, District Jaipur City (East) for the offence(s) under Sections 341, 323, 384, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 500, 504 and 120-B of IPC.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that initially the report was lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 323 and 143 of IPC, however, the Police did not submit the charge-sheet under Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC qua the petitioner. It is also contended that the accused-petitioner has not forged any documents and the land belong to the petitioner and the petitioner has not cheated anyone and the proceedings under Section 90-B which were initiated was later on cancelled. It is further contended that no right was given to the society to allot the pattas to the holders and the society S.S. Developers on his own granted several pattas. It is argued that another FIR Bearing No.74/2023 was also registered in the Police Station Ramnagariya, District Jaipur City East and after investigation the Police has submitted the final negative report with the conclusion that the Developers has no right to allot any pattas as the right vest with the land holders. It is also argued that in the present case the investigation was done by four Investigating Officer and the complainant in collusion with the Police Officials has wrongly submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner and the other co-accused. It is further argued that the civil litigation between the petitioner and the S.S. Developers is pending since 2023, the accused-petitioner is in custody since long and further trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, considering the aforesaid fact, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently opposed the grant of bail application.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the disputed land was sold by one Gulab and his wife to the Developer Society and huge amount was given to Gulab and to the present petitioner. The petitioner and the other co-accused after receiving the amount has executed 'Pratiga Patra' and thereafter Mr. Prem Surana formed a society in the name of Shri Narsingh Arcade (Shankar Vihar) and allotment letters were issued to the family members of the petitioner and to the petitioner himself. The act of the petitioner itself constitute offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 of IPC. It is further contended that the seven FIRs were also registered against the petitioner and the other co-accused, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

5. Heard and perused material available on record.

6. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. The Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 420, 406, 384 and 120-B of IPC and did not submit the charge-sheet for offence relating to forgery of any documents. The accused-petitioner is in custody since long, the matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate and civil litigation is pending between the petitioner and the society (S.S. Developers) and further trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, this Court deems it proper to allow the