[2025:RJ-JP:9444] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12783/2024 Kanaram S/o Shri Ramratan Jat, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Near Pushpa Poultry, Saradhana Road, Beawar, Distt. Beawar, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Gaharana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP Mr. Rahul Singh Meratwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 04/03/2025 1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 370/2024 registered at Police Station Saket Nagar, District Beawar for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, the petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that petitioner is the bonafide purchaser and has purchased the said land after entering into agreement dated 22.03.2024. The petitioner has paid amount of Rs. 73,00,000/- (Seventy Three Lakhs) to the seller i.e. Kiran Chand. It is also contended that petitioner itself is a victim of the same transaction, petitioner was duped by some other person representing himself as Kiran Chand. It is further argued that petitioner also came to know about fabrication of the documents after filing of the suit for specific performance of the said agreement. The petitioner is a genuine [2025:RJ-JP:9444] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-12783/2024] purchaser and not executed any forged documents. It is also argued that in the jamabandi of the disputed land, the address of present complainant Kiran Chand has been shown as Nayanagar, Beawar and petitioner executed the said agreement with Kiran Chand S/o Manak Chand R/o Nayanagar, Beawar. Accused- petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. He further submits that custodial investigation of the accused petitioner is not required. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the judgment passed in MD Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 13 (Addl.) S.C.R. 1254 pressing the para-15 of the said judgment which observes that:- “if a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint.” Therefore in the light the above judgment, the anticipatory bail of accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application. It is contended that complainant came to know about the existence of the forged document after filing of the suit of specific performance by the petitioner. The petitioner in collusion with the some unknown persons filed a suit for specific performance before the court concerned and notices were issued on the address Naya Nagar, Beawar but received by the counsel Mr. Ramesh Chand at his office address and this fact is substantiated by the Postal [2025:RJ-JP:9444] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-12783/2024] Department in response to information sought by the complainant Kiran Chand S/o Manak Chand. The report of Postal Department clearly shows that notices issued to so called Kiran Chand were received by the petitioner’s counsel itself at his own office address. It is also contended that thereafter Advocates Sh. Ravi Prakash Sukhadiya and Tarun Mahawar appeared on behalf of so called Kiran Chand. No personal summons were issued to the complainant Kiran Chand S/o Manak Chand, thus it is apparent that petitioner was hands in gloves with the person who represented himself as Kiran Chand and thereafter, sought protection from the concerned Civil Court. The petitioner is not a bonafide purchaser rather he defrauded the complainant by executing the agreement to sale in his favour. Prima facie there is enough material available on record to show that petitioner has forged the documents in collusion with the unknown person and attempted to transfer complainant’s property in his name, therefore his bail application deserves to be dismissed. Heard and perused the material available on the record. The record itself prima facie shows that petitioner is not a bonafide purchaser. The petitioner has failed to disclose the actual person who sold the said property to the petitioner, further subsequent suit was filed by the petitioner in the Civil Court which shows that notices were issued not to the complainant rather to some fake person and on behalf of the complainant vakalatnama was also filed before the concerned court, thus considering the above facts, this court is not inclined to enlarge the accused- petitioner on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:9444] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-12783/2024] Accordingly, instant anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /198