CRLMB9841/2010 CRLMB9857/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Cr. Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.9841/2010 Ashok Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor AND 2. S.B. Cr. Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.9857/2010 Subhash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order ::: 26.11.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri O.P. Mishra, Counsel for petitioner Ashok Verma Shri Jitendra Singh Tanwar, Counsel for petitioner Subhash Chand Shri Rajendra Yadav, Public Prosecutor Shri Manohar Singh, Sub Inspector, present-in- person #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material made available to me during the arguments of the case. Accused-petitioner Ashok Verma has filed third application for grant of bail, however, practically it is second time because his second bail application was only for interim bail, which was not pressed. Accused-petitioner Subhash Chand has filed second bail application as his first bail application was rejected by this court vide its order dated 23.06.2010. It is contended that vendors who sold disputed land to complainant were Harina and Batoor, have already been enlarged on bail pending trial by learned court of Sessions itself under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Accused-petitioner Ashok Verma CRLMB9841/2010 CRLMB9857/2010 // 2 // is said to be broker and that accused-petitioner Subhash Chand was his employee. What is alleged against accused-petitioner Ashok Verma is that he has taken brokerage of Rs.50,000/- and entire sale consideration was actually paid to vendors. Vendors Harina was wife of Jamal, who was main player in the matter, and other vendor Batoor was his daughter-in-law. Said Jamal could not be made accused because he had already been died before lodgment of first information report. Learned counsel submits that there is no other case against accused-petitioners except present one. They would undertake not to indulge in any such or other offence in future. It is submitted that allegation that government land was sold to complainant whereas this land is held to be a private land as per judgment of JDA Appellate Tribunal, dated 06.01.2010, which has attained finality. It is also submitted that accused-petitioner Ashok Kumar has undergone heart surgery while in jail as his heart- valve has been replaced and that his condition in jail is deteriorating day by day. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and proper to release the accused-petitioners, namely, Ashok Verma Son of late Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Resident of 102-A, Avadhpuri, Near Kanta, Jhotwara, Jaipur (presently confined in Central Jail Jaipur) (In 3rd Bail Application No.9841/2010) and Subhash Chand Son of Shri Shiv Narayan, Resident of Plot No.34, Suraj Nagar, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (confined in Central Jail Jaipur) (In 2nd Bail Application No.9857/2010) on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in FIR No.186/2010, Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur City, Jaipur, for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and CRLMB9841/2010 CRLMB9857/2010 // 3 // 120-B IPC, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of Rs.15000/- each, to satisfaction of trial court for their appearance on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. However, in case petitioners are again found indulging in similar or any other offence at any point of time in future, the bail granted to them by this court in present cases, would be liable to be cancelled at instance of prosecution on this ground alone and stipulation to this effect shall be inserted in bail bonds produced by petitioners, and sureties to be produced in support thereof shall be verified by Tehsildar of area concerned. Both bail applications stand disposed of. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//