1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Cr Misc Bail Application No. 4274/2010 Jugal Kishore Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan through PP 28.5.2010 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Rajesh Goswami - for petitioner Mr Peeyush Kumar, PP – for the State Mr Pankaj Gupta – for complainant BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that due to previous enmity the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner. So far as complainant is concerned, he is nothing to do with services of the petitioner. In view of aforesaid, petitioner may be granted bail. On the other hand, learned PP as also learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that even stranger has a right to lodge a FIR. Petitioner obtained service by manipulating date of 2 birth in the documents fraudulently and it is a serious matter though service was obtained by the petitioner in the year 1984 but at that time complainant was not in know of these facts. In view of aforesaid, petitioner may not be granted bail. In case the petitioner is granted bail, then it may be observed that the department should take up the matter to find out the truth by initiating inquiry. After taking into consideration rival submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, which may otherwise affect outcome of the trial, but looking to the facts of this case, I am inclined to allow this bail application under Section 438 CrPC. Therefore, the SHO/IO of the Police Station – Hindaun City, District – Karauli is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Jugal Kishore Sharma in FIR No. 527/2009 registered for offence under Section/s 420, 467 and 468 IPC, he shall enlarge him on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- 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 3 any Police Officer; (iii)He shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (iv)He shall not commit same and similar offence during the period of bail. It is however necessary to observe that looking to the nature of charges, the department concerned was expected to inquire into the matter and if it is found that petitioner has obtained service by manipulating documents then necessary action should have been taken. In any case, I expect that if representation is made by the complainant or by other person, the department will take up the matter accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the same. (MN Bhandari), J. bnsharma