1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 6358/2009 Magh Singh vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 07.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. V.S. Poonia, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Poonia, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Shri V.S. Poonia, Advocate on behalf of the applicant Magh Singh pertaining to F.I.R. No. 415/2001 of police station Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar registered for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case. The petitioner is alleged to have projected one Shokli widow of Bachchan Singh Rajput as Bhanwari Devi on her place and got executed Bhanwari Devi's land in his favour through a registered sale deed in the office of Sub-Registrar, Neem-Ka- Thana. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the complainant Smt. Bhanwari Devi filed one FIR No. 44/88 on 14th April, 1988 with Police Station, Neem-Ka-Thana, wherein after completion of the investigation, the final report un-occurred was given and submitted in the Court. The Court accepted this final report on 6th December, 1988. It is alleged that the complainant again filed another FIR No. 415/2001 on the same facts with Police Station, Neem-Ka-Thana. In fact, a private complaint came to be filed in the court, which was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation, whereupon this FIR No. 415/2001 came to be registered. Now the lady, who lodged the earlier two FIRs has died on 7th May, 2005. The learned counsel further submitted that no second FIR can be lodged in the police station for the same occurrence. In this case, parties are the same, dispute pertaining to land is the same; the land involved in dispute is also the same. In the first FIR, the F.R. was given, which was accepted. Now the second F.I.R. is forbidden under the provisions of law. The petitioner is an old man of the age of 85 years, hence may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this bail application on the ground that initially in the first FIR No. 44/88, F.R. was given on the ground that 3 the original sale deed was not traceable, but now the original sale deed has been procured and again the FIR has been lodged. As per report of F.S.L., it has been found that the thumb impression of Shokli alleged to have been made on original sale deed did tally with her specimen thumb impression, which proves that Bhanwari Devi did not appear before Sub-Registrar, Neem Ka Thana and the petitioner projected Shokli in place of Bhanwari Devi and executed the sale deed in his favour. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the relevant legal provisions, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but keeping in view the legal provisions that the second FIR is forbidden for the same occurrence, do feel inclined to grant indulgence of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the bail application deserves to be allowed. Therefore, the SHO/I.O. Of the Police Station Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Magh Singh, S/o Shri Ram Lal Singh, in FIR No. 415/2001 registered for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, he shall enlarge him on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rs. Five Thousand 4 Only) with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i) He shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required: (ii)He 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 to any Police Officer; (iii)He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (iv)He will not commit any offence during the period of bail. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. DK/-