Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1246 (RAJ)

Narendra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2011-06-29

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This seventh bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that for the occurrence took place on 9.3.2009 an FIR was lodged on 1.8.2009 by one Govind Ram against three accused persons Narendra, Shankar Lal and Pooranmal for the offence under Section 420, 406 and 120 B IPC. It is stated that for marriage of complainant's sons, Narendra Sharma, the accused petitioner and co-accused Pooranmal Sharma demanded Rs. 6,00,000/- and after taking the amount, the girls run away just after a day of marriage. 3. The first bail application No. 10504/2009 filed by the accused petitioner was rejected by this Court on 18.1.2010 as withdrawn and the accused petitioner was permitted to file bail application before the trial Court after filing of the challan. Thereafter the accused petitioner filed bail application before the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge vide his order dated 19.2.2010 rejected his bail application observing as under: ^^eSus i=koyh ns[kh] izLrqr rdksZa ij fopkj fd;kA bl ekeys esa izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr us nwljs O;fDr dh cfPp;ksa dks viuh yM+dh crkdj mudh 'kknh djok;h gS rFkk Ng yk[k #i;s Bx fy;s] tks ekeys dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks xaHkhj cukrk gSA izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls iwoZ esa izLrqr tekur vkosnu bl U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k fnukad 18 uoEcj 2009 {kjk ldkj.k [kkfjt fd;k tk pqdk gSA rRi'pkr~ izdj.k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,slk dksbZ cnyko ugha gqvk] ftlds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr tekur dk ;g f}rh; vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tk ldsA izdj.k esa ek= pkyku izLrqr gqvk gS rFkk pkyku izLrqr gksuk esjs fouez er esa izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa cnyko gksuk ugha dgk ldrk gS] cfYd izdj.k esa pkyku izLrqr gksus ds i'pkr izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr ij vkjksi Hkh fojphr fd;k tk pqdk gSA izdj.k esa fdlh Hkh xokg ds c;ku ys[kc) ugha fd;s x;s gSA vr% ,slh lwjr esa bl Lrj ij eSa izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr tekur dk ;g f}rh; vkosnu Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha ikrk gwaA** 4. Thereafter the accused petitioner moved second bail application before this Court on 23.2.2010. On 31.3.2010, the second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with the directions to the trial Court to complete the trial early. Thereafter the accused petitioner moved second bail application before this Court on 23.2.2010. On 31.3.2010, the second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with the directions to the trial Court to complete the trial early. The third bail application filed by the accused petitioner was rejected as withdrawn on 9.8.2010 with a further direction to the trial Court to complete the trial as early as possible. The fourth bail application moved by the accused petitioner before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.12.2010 with the direction to move a fresh bail application before the trial Court. The fifth bail application moved by the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was also dismissed as withdrawn on 3.1.2011 with the further direction to the trial Court to complete the trial as early as possible. On the sixth bail application moved by the accused petitioner for granting him interim bail for 20 days on account of death of his son Deepak Sharma, he was granted interim bail on 9.3.2011 for 20 days. Now the accused petitioner has filed this seventh bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner that the offence is triable by Magistrate of first Class and he is behind the bars since long and the Hon'ble Court rejected the fifth bail application with observation that trial may be expedited as early as possible but till date no evidence was recorded before the trial Court. It was argued that there is no chance of tempering with any evidence if the petitioner is granted the benefit of bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and stated that there are serious allegations against the accused petitioner of taking Rs. 6,00,000/- from the complainant for the marriage of his sons and after marriage the girls run away and hence he is not entitled to bail at this stage. It was further argued that there is no change in circumstances to consider his bail application at this stage. His earlier bail applications were rejected by this Court on account of withdrawal of the same by his counsel and direction was given to the trial Court to complete the trial as early as possible. 7. It was further argued that there is no change in circumstances to consider his bail application at this stage. His earlier bail applications were rejected by this Court on account of withdrawal of the same by his counsel and direction was given to the trial Court to complete the trial as early as possible. 7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and the fact that there is no change in circumstances, it is not a fit case to release the accused petitioner on bail at this stage. The accused petitioner is the main accused who has taken the money from the complainant for the marriage of his sons and immediately after marriage the girls run away. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial as early as possible. 8. This seventh bail application stands rejected.