[2026:RJ-JP:3308] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14857/2025 Shanti Devi W/o Shriramprasad Choudhary, R/o Plot No. 323, Krishi Nagar, Near Toll Tax, Tonk Road, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, Public Prosecutor with Shubham Sain, AAAG Mr. Vikas Kumar Jakhar for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 23/01/2026 1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.1326/2019 registered at Police Station Sanganer, District Jaipur City (East) for the offences under Sections 447, 504 and 506 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner is one of the bonafide purchaser of the land-in-question from the society and the patta was issued by the society in her name and on the basis of the said patta, she is in possession over the land-in-question. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and an interim order of the civil court was there in her favour. He further submits that [2026:RJ-JP:3308] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14857/2025] the complainant who has nothing to do with the plot-in-question is trying to dispossess the petitioner from possession over the plot under the garb of criminal case. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the patta on the basis of which, the petitioner is claiming her possession and title was sent to FSL for examination of the signatures of the post bearers of the society. In the FSL report, the signatures of the Secretary of the society have been found to be forged. 6. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the complainant and also perused the case diary. 7. The complainant has lodged the criminal case alleging that the accused-petitioner has illegally encroached over the plot which she has purchased from the housing society. It is also alleged in the FIR that when the complainant went on the spot, the accused- petitioner ousted him from there and used abusive language and gave threatening. 8. The patta on the basis of which the accused-petitioner is claiming her ownership and possession over the plot was sent to FSL for caparison of the signatures of the post bearers of the society. The Forensic Science Laboratory has given its report that the signatures of the Secretary of the society on the said patta are forged one. [2026:RJ-JP:3308] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14857/2025] 9. Once the signatures said to have been forged, a person cannot claim title over the plot on the basis of patta which bears forged signatures. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction wherein, an interim order has also been passed in her favour. 11. It is basis principal of law that the patta on the basis of which the accused-petitioner is claiming her ownership has found to be forged and in that situation the accused-petitioner cannot claim any right on the basis of such patta which bears forged signatures of the office bearers of the society. 12. The accused-petitioner has also preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2677/2022 for quashing of the aforesaid FIR. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 13.10.2025 has dismissed the criminal misc. petition in the light of the fact that the patta on the basis of which the accused-petitioner is claiming her title and ownership is found to have forged signatures of the office bearers of the society. After going through the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it reveals that the Police has also cooperating the accused-petitioner. 13. Taking into consideration over all facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused- petitioner. 14. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /192