[2025:RJ-JP:34829] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2131/2025 Ravi Sharma @ Mahendra S/o Gopal Sharma, R/o Village Anantpura, Jaitpura, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur. (Presently Accused-Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Sukhram Raigar S/o Sh. Bhairuram Raigar, R/o Village Motu Ka Bas, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. Currently R/o Village Hasteda, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan Mr. Ashok Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 21/08/2025 1. Instant appeal is filed under Section 14A (2) of SC/ST (POA) Act in a matter arising out of FIR No. 291/2024 at P.S. Chomu, District Jaipur (West) for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 3(1)(R) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated by complainant. He further submitted that the allegation on present appellant is that his demand drafts were utilized in alleged transaction. He also submitted that at the most this is a case, wherein property has been transferred on the basis of power of attorney executed in accordance with law and the power of [2025:RJ-JP:34829] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2131/2025] attorney was genuine and executed as per law, therefore, the offence under Section 467, 468 and 477 are not made out. He further submitted that complainant himself has executed the power of attorney and on the basis of said power of attorney a instrument was executed and registered. He further submitted that a civil dispute is already pending, and to settled the score the appellant accused was falsely implicated and no purpose will be served in keeping him behind the bars. He further submitted that a charge-sheet has already been filed and appellant is in custody since 25.07.2025 and disposal of case will take time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and submitted report received from P.S. Chomu, District Jaipur (West). None present on behalf of complainant though the power has been filed on behalf of complainant after service. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5 On the basis of report dated 01.06.2024 lodged by complainant Amar Chand Raigar against four named persons including present appellant accused alleging that a power of attorney cancelled by his father on 02.08.2021 after publishing a public notice in daily newspaper and further informed by legal notice dated 22.12.2021 and 06.01.2022 and a civil suit is pending but a sale deed is executed on 09.04.2024 on the basis of said cancelled power of attorney in favour of Rameshwar Lal Bunkar. The complainant has also mentioned that the land in question was transferred by a registered gift deed by his father in his favour on 17.10.2023. After registration of a criminal case the [2025:RJ-JP:34829] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2131/2025] matter is investigated and police has filed a charge-sheet against the present appellant, Rajeshwar Pal Karadia and Rameshwar Lal Bunkar. The appellant accused Ravi Sharma is in custody since 25.07.2025. 6. The material on record indicate that a power of attorney was executed on 25.04.2000 and same was cancelled on 02.08.2021 and further information was published and also sent to the agent (holder of POA). A civil suit is also filed in the year 2022 in the Court of Civil Judge no.17, Jaipur, Headquarter Chomu wherein Rajeshwar Pal Karadia is a party. Subsequent to aforesaid, the land is transferred by executing a registered sale deed. The investigation further revealed that complainant a member of SC community and his father Sukhram is 82 year old person. The material on record indicate that aggrieved from decree dated 17.02.2020 present petitioner accused has filed an appeal before the RAA as the transfer of said land is hit by Section 42-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955. 7. Having considered the fact that the money was transferred from account of present appellant accused and further he also involved in litigation in relation to land in question, therefore, looking to role and involvement of of present appellant, this is not a fit case wherein appellant accused is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Hence, the appeal preferred by appellant accused - Ravi Sharma @ Mahendra S/o Gopal Sharma is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /288