Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1890 (RAJ)

RAJENDRA MAMODIA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2002-11-27

HARBANS LAL

body2002
Judgment HARBANS LAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS bail application under Section 439 Cr. P. C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Rajendra Mamodia who is facing trial along with others on the charges for the offences under Sections 167, 409, 120-B IPC and Section 5 of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 and under Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Sessions Case No. 9/2002. It is alleged that the petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with Manish Dhar and Vimal Srivastava and in order to carry out this criminal conspiracy Manish Dhar, Data Entry Operator, who was entrusted with confidential draft budget press notes on 28-3-2001, took out copy of the same from the computer and handed over the same to accused petitioner. Next day co-accused Vimal Srivastava took these papers from the house of the petitioner and handed over the same to one M. L. A. who distributed these papers in assembly during budget speech on 29/3/2001. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that no offence under Sections 167, 409/120b IPC is made out against the petitioner who is not the government servant and no property or valuable security was entrusted to him. The offence under the Indian Official Secrets Act is a bailable offence and the alleged facts disclose an offence under Section 72 of the Information Technology which is also bailable. It has also been contended that according to the statement of Govind Sharma PW-15 and the enquiry report of the then Principal Finance Secretary the papers shown in the assembly did not relate to the budget. He has also contended that the petitioner has been in custody for over 30 months and out of a list of 56 witnesses only 15 witnesses have been examined so far. Section 437 (6) of Cr. P. C. provides that if the trial is not completed within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording of the evidence, the accused shall be released on bail unless otherwise directed for reasons to be recorded. He has therefore urged that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Section 437 (6) of Cr. P. C. provides that if the trial is not completed within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording of the evidence, the accused shall be released on bail unless otherwise directed for reasons to be recorded. He has therefore urged that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. ( 3 ) LEARNED P. P. has on the other hand vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the bail application of co-accused persons has been rejected by a coordinate bench of this court after taking into consideration the merits of the case and the culpability of the petitioner is not in any way lesser than those accused persons. He has also submitted that the provisions of Section 437 (6) Cr. P. C. apply to a case triable by a Magistrate. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has in reply submitted that the rule of parity cannot be applied for rejecting the bail application of an accused person because while rejecting the bail application of co-accused persons the petitioner had no opportunity of being heard. ( 5 ) I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also perused the case diary and other papers placed before me. It would not be appropriate and reasonable to make any observation on the merits of the case at this stage, for this may prejudice the case of either side at the trial. However, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the period for which the petitioner has been in custody in this case and the fact that co-accused Manish Dhar, the Data Entry Operator, is the main accused. I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. ( 6 ) IN the result, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the accused applicant Rajendra Mamodia son of Ramdhan Mamodia shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing until conclusion of the trial. Application allowed.