Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1093 (RAJ)

Bharunath @ Bhana v. State of Rajasthan

2010-05-28

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble SHARMA, J.--Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner as also learned PP for the State on the second bail application. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.10.2009 an FIR No. 439/2009 was lodged at Police Station Harmada, Jaipur District, Jaipur stating therein that a Police Team consisting of ASI Om Prakash, Bajrang Lal, Head Constable, Prakash Chand and Nand Kishore on a Government Jeep driven by Ashok Kumar, on information reached near Pani Factory. It was found near by the Panir Factory on open piece of land, 2 stationery tankers and 2 pick-up vehicles. Several persons were stealing milk from the tankers. It was alleged inter-alia that there was Pick-up vehicle bearing No. RJ-23-TRC-8245 whose driver stated his name Om Prakash s/o Ganesh Ram. On this pick-up vehicle 15 canes of 15 liters were found. Out of these 3 canes were filled of mike and there was a 15 ft. long hose pipe also. It was further stated that a guard for security of milk tanker was also present. Case under Sections 379, 420 and 407 IPC was registered. 3. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 5.2.2010. Investigation has been completed and the police has already filed challan. He submits that it is simply a matter of mixing the water in the milk. The offence alleged to have been committed by the accused petitioner is triable by Magistrate of First Class. He further submits that no change has been made in the measurement and density of the milk. In the instant case charges have been framed against the accused petitioner. Thus, this second bail application of the accused petitioner be allowed and the accused petitioner be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned PP controverted the aforesaid submissions and submits that the first bail application of the accused petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 5.2.10. The offence committed by the accused petitioner is anti-social in nature. Lastly, he submits that after rejection of the first bail application, no major subsequent developments have taken place in the matter. Thus, the second bail application of the accused petitioner be rejected. 5. A bare perusal of the facts of the case clearly reveal that the accused petitioner was involved in commissioning of the aforesaid offences. Lastly, he submits that after rejection of the first bail application, no major subsequent developments have taken place in the matter. Thus, the second bail application of the accused petitioner be rejected. 5. A bare perusal of the facts of the case clearly reveal that the accused petitioner was involved in commissioning of the aforesaid offences. In my considered view, in such types of offences which affect the health of general public, the accused petitioner is not entitled for bail. 6. In the result, this second bail application is devoid of merits and stands rejected. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the 15 trial, if possible, preferably within a period of six months from today.