[2025:RJ-JP:6932] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10892/2024 Fatehchand Sharma S/o Late Shri Banshidhar Sharma, Aged About 82 Years, R/o House No.2270, Khajane Walo Ka Rasta, Pahla Chauraha, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Sikovia, Adv., with Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP, Mr. Sanjay Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Bhupendra Singh, I.O. (ASI), PS Kardhani, District Jaipur (West). HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 17/02/2025 1. The instant pre-arrest bail application has been filed under Section 482 BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of arrest in FIR No.927/2023 registered at Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that admittedly, agreement to sell was executed between the parties for which Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) was paid by the complainant to the petitioner as advanced payment. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to return the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) to the complainant, if he [2025:RJ-JP:6932] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10892/2024] desires. He argues that a notice was received by the petitioner from the complainant on 23.12.2021 just one day before the expiry of the agreement period. Despite this, FIR has been lodged in the month of August, 2023 after almost 20 months of the said notice. He further argues that maximum term of sentence for the alleged offences is seven years. He contends that entire evidence is based on documents and same are in power and possession of the Investigating Agency. He further contends that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this matter. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as eight other criminal cases have been registered against him. He further submits that in pursuance of order dated 05.02.2025 passed by this Court, written explanation has been submitted by the Investigating Officer as to why he did not mention pendency of other criminal cases of the petitioner while filing the factual report before the learned trial Court. As per the explanation, inadvertently, due to bonafide human error, the fact regarding previous criminal cases, registered against the petitioner could not be mentioned in the factual report. However, a list thereof was annexed with the factual report which probably due to oversight, was not considered by the learned trial Court. It is also stated that there is reference in the case diary dated 02.07.2024 that proper record was collected by the Investigating Officer before submission of factual report before the learned trial Court. [2025:RJ-JP:6932] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10892/2024] 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Prima facie, the explanation so submitted by the Investigating Officer, seems to be convincing. However, he is advised to remain careful in future while placing the documents before the Courts. He is further directed to make proper mentions in the factual reports with regard to the criminal antecedents of accused while submitting them in the Courts. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties as also the fact that the alleged offences are based on documents and same are in possession of the Investigating Agency, impugned FIR has been lodged after delay; but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the pre-arrest bail application. It is to be observed here that mere pendency of previous criminal cases against an accused, cannot be a sole ground for denying bail. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. 7. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur (West) (Raj.) in FIR No.927/2023 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner - Fatehchand Sharma S/o Late Shri Banshidhar Sharma, he shall be released on bail, provided he [2025:RJ-JP:6932] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10892/2024] furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to their satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii). that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and (iii). that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (iv). that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/256