IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.4292/2010 Rajendra alias Prince Son of Chandagiram Vs. State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor Date of Order ::: 05.07.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Harendra Singh, Counsel for petitioner Shri Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor Shri C.S. Rathore, Counsel for complainant #### By the Court:-
It is argued by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has wrongly been named in the FIR and even as per the evidence collected by the investigating agency it was Devi Singh and one Babulal who, according to prosecution, impersonated as Babulal Kumawat, who received the money.
Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and submitted that fake Babulal Kumawat was planted by present accused-petitioner and co-accused Devi Singh; in fact he was an imposter, who received the money and not the actual Babu Lal Kumawat. Learned Public Prosecutor read over the statement of complainant as well as statements of Mahipal Singh and Manoj Singh, who are the witnesses to the agreement to sell. So far challan has not been filed and investigation is pending.
Upon hearing learned counsel for accused-petitioner, learned counsel for complainant and learned Public Prosecutor, I am not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail at this stage.
The bail application is accordingly rejected.
However the petitioner would be at liberty to again apply for bail before the court below itself after the statements of the complainant and witnesses Mahipal Singh and Manoj Singh are recorded. The prosecution is directed to produce them before the trial court as witnesses on priority basis for recording their statements after filing of challan.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//