Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 1061 (RAJ)

Moola Ram v. State of Rajasthan

1998-10-09

B.J.SHETHNA

body1998
Honble SHETHNA, J.–Four arguments have been made in this petition : (i) That entrustment was not proved, therefore, no case is made out under Section 409 IPC, (ii) The accused was falsely involved in this case because he was never there as Chairman during the time of allegation, (iii) In appeal the order passed by the authority merged, which fact was deliberately suppressed by the complainant in the complaint, (iv) In Bilara Co-operative Societys case this Court granted bail, therefore, bail should be granted to the present accused. (2). First submission that no case under Section 409 IPC is made out has no substance as from the order itself a prima facie case under Section 409 IPC is made out, hence first submission is rejected. (3). Second submission that the petitioner was falsely involved in this case cannot be considered at this stage as it is a matter of evidence, which can only be decided at the time of trial, hence second submission is rejected. (4). Third submission that order had merged in appeal, which fact was suppressed by the complainant cannot be considered at this stage. It is well settled that defence of the accused cannot be considered at the stage of bail. It is always open to the accused to take up defence and prove it by leading evidence at the time of trial. While considering the prima facie case, the Court has to look at the bare averments made in the FIR and from that it has to come to the conclusion whether the offence is made out or not. From the bare look on the averments made in FIR, prima facie case is made out, hence, the third submission is also rejected (5). Last submission that in Bilara Co-operative Societys case this Court granted bail must be rejected as this Court has noticed that this type of arguments have been advanced not only before this Court, but also copy of others or references have been made before the trial Court pointing out that High Court has gran- ted bail and on that ground bail is sought. It must be stated that on the request of learned Public Prosecutor, reasons have not been assigned while granting bail because it might come in the way of prosecution. It must be stated that on the request of learned Public Prosecutor, reasons have not been assigned while granting bail because it might come in the way of prosecution. Considering the facts and circumstances of each case the Court has to decide as to whether the bail should be granted or not. No such case is made out to grant bail in this case. The last sub- mission was made in air without any other material. This type of practice is required to be condemned in strongest words. Suffice it to say that in this case I do not find any substance to grant anticipatory bail to the present accused against whom the allegation is made that he alongwith two other accused have mis-appropriated huge amount of six lacs of public i.e. from Co-operative Society. (6). In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merit in this bail application and the same is hereby dismissed. (7). At this stage, an argument was advanced that from the material available with the I.O. no case is made out against the accused. It was submitted by Mr. Acharya that on earlier occasion this Court call for the case diary, which has not come, therefore,this Court should not have dismissed this bail application. It is true that this Court passed an order of calling case diary, but it is unfortunate that not only in this case, but in other cases also the case diaries have not been received by the Public Prosecutor though ordered by this Court and in many cases, like this present case, this Court was compelled to pass orders without it as the Court cannot wait for indefinite period in a case filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. when the accused is enjoying interim relief against his arrest. There is one additional factor in this case that complainant side is duly represented and having assistance of complainant through learned Public Prosecutor this Court is satisfied that this is not a case for anticipatory bail. Hence, this bail application is dismissed.