1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6042/2009 Ladu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 10.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Ashvin Garg, for the petitioner. Mr. Mahendra Goyal, for the complainant. Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, P.P. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Ashvin Garg Advocate on behalf of the applicant Ladu Ram pertaining to F.I.R. No. 884/2008 of Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur in the offences under Sections 453, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he has been falsely implicated in this case whereas, he is the bona fide purchaser of Plot No. 33 situated in Gopalbadi, Jagatpura. The petitioner purchased this plot from one Mukesh Kumar Meena whereupon, he has constructed a house also and wherein, he has been living permanently. He has also filed a suit of permanent injunction against Moolchand Arora and Smt. Rajni Verma, which is pending in civil court. The petitioner is innocent man, hence, he may be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application primarily on the ground that the petitioner did not purchase this plot from 2 Mukesh Meena but as per the agreement, he is found to have purchased this plot from Smt. Rajni Verma in the name of Rajanti Devi for a consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs. This agreement was prepared on 5.4.2001. There is another agreement receipt which reveals that the petitioner purchased this plot from Mukesh Kumar Meena for a consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs and he is found to have paid Rs. 20,000/- in advance to him on 21.5.2008. There is another receipt which reflects that Mukesh Kumar Meena obtained Rs. 50,000/- cash from the petitioner against the value of disputed plot. A simple sale-deed scribbled on a plane paper which is being called a registered sale-deed by the petitioner is the only document vide which the petitioner is alleged to have got the title of the plot from Mukesh Kumar Meena. Learned counsel has alleged that these are the papers which the petitioner forged and occupied the plot which in fact, belongs to Smt. Rajni Verma. Hence, his bail petition should be dismissed. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material on record, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but keeping in view the gravity of offence, do not feel inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Mak/- s-9