1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.6149/2010 Hansraj Joshi Vs. State Date of order : 19/8/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Amit Kumar Soni for the petitioner. Shri Laxman Meena, P.P. for the State. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is a very poor person. He was allotted by JDA a plot measuring 50 sq. mtrs in 1983. As per the evidence of the prosecution, originally the agreement to sale for this plot was executed by the petitioner with Bandu Khan. Thereafter, on the instance of Bandu Khan, another agreement in favour of one Bhanwar Lal in 1993 and also a power of attorney was executed. At that time, Bandu Khan has brought to Mohan Lal who was accompanied by Ram Dev and his wife Santra. Now recently in 2008, Bandu Khan brought Santra Devi to the petitioner, who had been in the meantime throughout residing in the house constructed on that plot i.e. D-355 and stated that her husband Ram Dev has expired and that the papers which were originally executed in respect of this plot were lost and, 2 therefore, the petitioner executed sale deed in her favour. Petitioner did not charge any sale consideration but on the instance of Bandu Khan executed sale deed in favour of Santra Devi believing her to be wife of Bhanwar Lal. But before doing so, he revoked the power of attorney given in favour of Bhanwar Lal. Learned counsel submitted that there is no allegation of cheating as far as petitioner is concerned and if there is dispute inter se between Bhanwar Lal and Santra Devi, that would be settled in civil suit wherefor Bhanwar Lal has filed civil suit impleading Santra Devi also as a defendant. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Having regard to the submissions made at the bar, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, the materials collected so far during the course of investigation and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant the indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. In the result, this bail application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Hansraj Joshi S/o B.M. Joshi in FIR No.161/2010, P.S. Murlipura, Jaipur for offences under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC, he shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of Rs.15,000/- 3 each to his satisfaction on the following conditions: - 1) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2) 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 3) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/