High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
SMT.SEEMA SINGH v STATE - CRLMB Case No. 2646 of 2007  RD-RJ 3328 (12 July 2007)
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2646/2007
(Smt. Seema Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan)
DATE OF ORDER : 12/07/2007
HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR, J.
Mr. Dhirendra Singh for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Upadhayay, Public Prosecutor for State.
Mr. Rajesh Vyas for the complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and public
Prosecutor for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant.
Perused the order impugned and the police investigation diary.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Poonam Singh and his brother Durgasingh executed a relinquish deed relinquishing the share to the extent measuring 640 square feet = 71.12 sqaure yards = 17.3 x 37 feet out of the share 37 x 37 feet = 1369 square feet and therefore, by a subsequent document if any land has been transferred, then it was only for the remaining share.
Learned public prosecutor and counsel appearing for the complainant submit that by relinquish deed dated 7.2.2004 once Poonam Singh relinquished his share along with his brother
Durga Singh, thereafter he had no share in the plot.
On a careful perusal of the relinquish deed which is available in the police investigation diary, in my view, the share has been relinquished but partly since the document itself in clear terms speaks that the share comes to 1369 square feet whereas the relinquish deed relates to 640 square feet. The parties have gone to the civil court as a civil suit has been filed by the subsequent purchaser. The complainant is the first purchaser and after getting the land purchased constructed the house therein and has been living therein. However, it is alleged that the plot which was sold to the complainant has subsequently been sold by the accused persons to one Sohanlal. Be that as it may. The complainant is purchaser prior in time and therefore, has a better title then anybody else and Sohanlal if subsequently purchased the land cannot have a better title than the complainant. Even otherwise, Sohanlal has already filed a suit being Civi Original Suit No. 83/07 against Hari Singh and Ors. in which complainant Virendra Roi has filed an application under
Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC to implead him as party defendant. In the circumstances, therefore, the controversy can well be agitated before the Civil Court, if at all. In any case, the complainant has a better title and he cannot be dislodged by a subsequent purchaser.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the oral arguments advanced by the parties, I consider it just and proper to allow the bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the bail application filed by the petitioner u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Smt. Seema Singh W/o Jairaj Singh in FIR
No. 174/2007 P.S. Udaimandir, Jodhpur, she shall be released on bail for a period till the police concludes the investigation and files the challan provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer to surrender and appear before the trial court on the date of filing of the challan after conclusion of the investigation on the following conditions:-
(i)That she shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii)That she 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 and;
(iii)That she shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
The petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on the date of filing of the challan and move a regular bail.
(H.R.PANWAR), J. rp
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.