A chief judicial magistrate court issued an arrest warrant against former Union minister and Congress leader Jitendra Singh of Alwar and two others for allegedly cheating and forging a trust deed to take over the properties of Bundi’s erstwhile royal family.
Police said the arrest warrant against Jitendra, his father-in-law Bijendra Singh and former zila pramukh of Bundi Shrinath Singh Hada was issued on November 18.
The court also ordered the police to arrest the trio and produce them before it on January 6, 2022. In December 2017, the Bundi city police had registered a case against Jitendra and the two others under IPC sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using a forged document as genuine) and 120 (B) (criminal conspiracy) based on a complaint lodged by Avinash Kumar Chandna, who claimed to be a friend of Ranjeet Singh, son of the erstwhile royal family’s last king Bahadur Singh. Jitendra Singh was Ranjeet Singh’s nephew. Chandna had alleged that the former minister, along with the two other men, had hatched a conspiracy to take over the properties belonging to Ranjeet, who did not have a child, by forging his signature on a trust deed backdating it to May 2008. Chandna claimed that Ranjeet was his friend and had stayed with him in his Delhi house till his last breath in 2010 and that the royal family scion had transferred all the property to him in 2009. Chandna alleged that Jitendra set up Kul Devi Ashapura Mataji Trust and fraudulently routed all of Ranjeet’s properties to himself through the trust. The court, while issuing the arrest warrant, said Jitendra and the two others tried to deceive the court by submitting fake trust deed to gain unfair benefit.
The court also observed that Jitendra did not provide the original copy of the trust deed to the investigating officer, instead furnished a fabricated report issued by a private forensic laboratory. Based on this report submitted by Jitendra, the Bundi city police had filed a Final Report on the case. Chandna, however, moved the court challenging it.