1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1113/2010 Vedprakash Paladiya vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 26th February, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Biri Singh,)counsel for the petitioner Mr. H. Singh ) Mr. S.R. Bajwa, Sr. Counsel) for the with ) complainant Mr. V.R. Bajwa ) Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Biri Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner Ved Prakash Paladiya in FIR No. 100/2009 registered at Police Station Pushkar, District Ajmer in the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 323 readwith 120-B of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that he has been falsely implicated. The petitioner happened to be disciple of the complainant. Both readily agreed to sell and purchase the disputed land. The sale deed was registered on 28.3.2008 and the payment was made in cash. He never entered into an agreement to sell and the document has been forged by the complainant. No offence under Section 467, 468 or 471 of IPC is made out against the petitioner from the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the petitioner deserves to be granted indulgence of pre-arrest bail. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant and petitioner, both, entered into an agreement to sell the agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 1,44,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore and Forty Four Lakh) on 24th January, 2008. The petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lakh) in advance, but did not pay the same and on the contrary, under a hatched conspiracy, fraudulently obtained her signatures on 3 28th March, 2008 on the said sale deed, which is alleged to have been registered and thus, the sale deed is a forged document. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant took me through the registered sale deed and argued that the so-called registered sale deed reflects serious contradictions about the mode of payment. In the text of the sale deed, an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lakh) is stated to have been paid in cash to the complainant, whereas on the back of it, the competent authority is found to have scribbled the payment to have been made through cheque. Albeit, the name of the bank and cheque number is not mentioned therein, but no receipt with regard to payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the complainant has also been shown to the Court. It casts doubt about the veracity of the mode of payment. It evinces that the sale deed is a forged document. The petitioner being disciple of the complainant endeavoured to gain confidence and thereafter committed cheating as also forgery. Thus, the 4 petitioner does not deserve to be released on anticipatory bail. 6. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the material on record, it is noticed that two documents agreement to sell and the registered sale deed have emerged on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has called the agreement to sell to be forged one. E Contra, the learned counsel for the complainant has described the registered sale deed to be a forged document. I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do feel that the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, prima-facie, do not seem to be false, groundless and baseless. The provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are sparingly used in rarest of the rare circumstances, as consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in umpteen cases. 7. In Pankaj vs. State of Raj., RLW 1996(1) Raj., 628, this court has categorically observed that the provisions of Section 438 are attracted only when it is found that the accusation or 5 allegations levelled against the petitioner are found to be totally false, baseless and groundless. It is for the accused to set out that no prima facie case is made out against him. From the facts on record, it is not reflected that the accusation against the petitioner are totally false and baseless. Hence, in the instant case, the petitioner is not entitled to get the anticipatory bail. 8. In the result, the bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused- petitioner Vedprakash Paladiya S/o late Shri Satyadev Brahmchari stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. DK/-