S.B.CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.7669/2008 LALIT KHANKA VS. STATE OF RAJ. S.B.CR.MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.7502/2008 MOOL CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJ. 16.10.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Neeraj Sharma for the petitioner (in bail petition No.7669/2008) Mr. Ashvin Garg for the petitioner (in bail petition No.7502/2008) Mr. Jinendra Jain, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Dinesh Kala for the complainant. Since both the aforesaid bail petitions pertain to and arise out of one FIR No.366/2008 of Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Both the accused petitioners Lalit Dhanka and Mool Chand are alleged to have been involved in the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. As per the prosecution story one Ramesh Saini (fake name)contacted the complainant Mangi Lal Sharma on telephoe and persuaded him to purchase the plot belonging to Pramod Mathur (fake name) at the rate of RS.5,000/- per sq.yards. One Sunil Kumar Agarwal brought the papers and scribbled an agreement. It is also alleged that the persons of the name of Ramesh Saini, Pramod, Sanjay and Sunil Kumar Agarwal dishonestly induced the complainant Mangi Lal Sharma to deliver Rs.58,22,000/- (Rs. Fifty eight lacs and twenty two thousand) in lieu of so- called plot sold to him. When enquired about these persons, the complainant did not find any person of the aforesaid names and then he filed a 2 complaint in the police which is pending investigation. Heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner- Mool Chand has contended that he had no connection with the commission of the offence of this case. He has been falsely implicated. Neither, he forged any document nor he induced to complainant to deliver any property to him, nor he obtained any amount from him, and as such he has got no nexus with the case and he deserves to be released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner- Lalit Dhanka has also similarly contended that the petitioner is an innocent man. He is not aware of the sale proceedings etc. He has not received any amount from the complainant nor forged any document. He has been falsely implicated and he may also be released on bail. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail petitions on the ground that the petitioner Lalit Dhanka is the main architect of this case who forged the documents of plot Nos. 63, 64 and 51. So far as the accused Mool Chand is concerned, it is he, who searched the customer and made available the telephone number of the complainant Mangi Lal Sharma to accused Ram Prasad. Not only this, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- has also been recovered from him which he had 3 obtained out of the sale proceedings. Since both the accused persons are deeply involved in the cases of land garbing and cheating the innocents customers, their bail petition may be dismissed. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and scanned the material on record, it is found that Ram Prasad Meena impersonated himself to be Ramesh Saini and he introduced his brother-in-law Bane Singh as Sunil before the complainant Mangi Lal Sharma. It is noticed that the accused Mool Chand was assigned the task of searching a customer and he discharging his functions made available the telephone number of Mangi Lal Sharma to the accused Ram Prasad, who settled the deal of selling of plot to the complainant and thus, cheated and dishonestly induced him to deliver Rs. 58,00,000/- in lieu of a forged and fake plot. It is noteworthy that the spate of incidents of land garbing as also cheating and forgery relating to land has alarmingly increased in the city during last few years which has caused the normal life of innocent citizens under sustained attack and mayhem. Unless, nipped in the bud at the earliest, it may surely malignice the whole city. Keeping in view the present state of affairs and the gravity of the offences involved, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do not feel inclined to grant bail to both the accused petitioners namely Lalit Dhanka and Mool Chand and their bail petition 4 deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the bail petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused petitioners namely Lalit Dhanka son of Shri Devi Lal resident of Jaipur and Mool Chand son of Shri Babulal resident of Jaipur are hereby ordered to be dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. PCG