[2025:RJ-JP:23653] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1995/2024 Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Birbal Ram Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 275/38 Ashok Vihar Colony, Subhash Nagar, Tehsil And Distt. Ajmer (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Pp At Rajasthan High Court Bench, At Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shri Ram Dhakar, Public Prosecutor. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL (V. J.) Order 27/06/2025 1. None present on behalf of the accused-petitioner. 2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Allegation against the accused-petitioner is that the complainant delivered him possession of vehicle (Desire Car RJ- TA-2515) under execution of power of attorney with an understanding that the instalments of vehicle loan shall be paid by the accused-petitioner but the accused-petitioner did not pay the due instalments, hence, the complainant had to deposit the due loan amount of Rs.6,10,000/-; accused-petitioner has not re- delivered the possession of the vehicle to complainant, hence, he has committed fraud with the complainant. [2025:RJ-JP:23653] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1995/2024] 4. According to the accused-petitioner, he has paid the entire value of Rs.5,45,000/- of the vehicle to the complainant in two instalments, of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- and the complainant executed sale agreement in his favour. The document of sale agreement and receipt of entire value executed by complainant have been placed on record. 5. It is further case of accused-petitioner that he has no criminal antecedents and his custodial investigation is not warranted, considering the nature of dispute, accused-petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation, hence, in such circumstances he may be granted benefit of bail. 5. This Court finds that vide interim order dated 08.05.2024, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted interim protection to the accused-petitioner and the investigation officer/SHO was directed to verify the genuineness/veracity of the document of sale agreement and receipt of Rs.5,45,000/-, allegedly executed by the complainant under his signature. The report of investigation officer is still awaited. 6. From the record, it appears that complainant happens to be in relationship with the accused-petitioner being his brother-in- law. Indisputably, complainant handed over the vehicle to the accused-petitioner under power of attorney and the dispute of payment of value of the vehicle is a civil dispute. The report of genuineness/veracity of the sale agreement and receipt is yet to be produced by the SHO/Investigation Officer, and interim protection against arrest of accused-petitioner has already been granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, hence, in overall [2025:RJ-JP:23653] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1995/2024] facts and circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant bail application with following directions: (i) The interim protection dated 08.05.2024 shall continue; accused-petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. (ii) In case, SHO/Investigation Officer finds that the sale agreement and receipt of complainant are not genuine, the interim protection granted in favour of the accused-petitioner shall come to an end and a fresh FIR of filing forged documents before High Court shall also be registered against the complainant, however, in case the sale agreement and receipt are found to be genuine, interim protection dated 08.05.2024 shall be treated as absolute until the investigation attains finality. (SUDESH BANSAL (V. J.)),J Tushar/46