1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 7000/2009 Sanjeeram vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 16.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Ashvin Garg, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Ashvin Garg Advocate on behalf of the applicant Sanjeeram pertaining to F.I.R. No. 303/2009 of police station Tapukra, District Alwar in the offences under Sections 420 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the land in dispute was initially found to have been purchased by the complainant from Mamchand on 17.07.2007 but prior to that Mamchand had executed a will on 31.03.2007 in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of this will, the mutation was approved in the Revenue record on 20.02.2009. Aggrieved with this revenue proceedings, the complainant filed an appeal in the court of Additional District Magistrate on 18.05.2009, where the order of status quo has been passed. This order is still in force. When the complainant could not satisfy himself with this proceeding, he filed a false report with the police station Tapukra on 05.08.2009. The petitioner apprehends his arrest 2 to be made by the police, in this case, whereas the petitioner is totally innocent and he has committed no offence, as such, he may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition but has failed to convince the court as to how the will in question has been found to be forged. The Investigating Officer, Mr. Hamid Khan, of this case is present in the court. He has also utterly failed to convince the court as to how this will in question has been found to be forged. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that no evidence with regard to having found the will to be forged, have been collected by the Investigating Officer, hence, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but keeping in view the facts and circumstances in totality do feel that it is fit case wherein, the petitioner can be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail and his bail petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Therefore, the SHO/I.O. Of the Police Station Tapukra, District Alwar is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Sanjeeram S/o. Netram in FIR No. 303/2009 registered in the offences under Sections 420 of IPC, he shall enlarge him on bail provided he furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,000/- with a surety bond 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: 3 (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. Mak/- 28