Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 226 (RAJ)

Neetu v. State of Rajasthan

2011-02-01

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This order governs the disposal of the bail application filed under section 439 of Cr.PC by Mr. Manoj Avasthi, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner Neetu pertaining to FIR No. 308/2010 of Police Station, Kanchanpur, District Dholpur registered in the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 2. One country made katta of 315 bore and 2 live cartridges of 315 bore are alleged to have been recovered from the custody of the petitioner and as such he has been made an accused for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the instant case, whereas he is in no way connected with the commission of the alleged offence. The petitioner is in custody since 30th October, 2010 and the trial of the case is likely to take time. He further canvassed that as per the provisions of Section 37 of the Arms Act, the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act is bailable, whereas the learned trial court dismissed his bail application on the ground that the offence under Section 3/25 is non-bailable. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Shokin Kureshi @ Chota v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6349/2009) reported in 2010 (1) WLC (Raj.) 138 . He canvassed that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Court, but the learned trial court sans following the provisions of law, arbitrarily dismissed his bail application and thus, the petitioner deserves to be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the bail application for name's sake. 5. Section 37 of the Arms Act envisages thus : "37. Arrest and search. 4. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the bail application for name's sake. 5. Section 37 of the Arms Act envisages thus : "37. Arrest and search. - Save as otherwise provided in this Act - (a) All arrests and searches made under this Act or under any rules made thereunder shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, relating respectively to arrests and searches made under that Code; (b) any person arrested and any arms or ammunition seized under this act by a person not being a magistrate or a police officer shall be delivered without delay to the officer in charge of the nearest police station and that officer shall (i) either release that person on his executing a bond with or without sureties to appear before a magistrate and keep the thing seized in his custody till the appearance of that person before the magistrate, or (ii) should that person fail to execute the bond and to furnish if so required, sufficient sureties, produce that person and those things without delay before the magistrate." 6. The provisions of Section 37 of the Arms Act envisage that if any person is arrested and any arms or ammunition is seized under this Act, then that person is entitled to have been released on his executing a bond with or without surety for his appearance before the Magistrate. The accused shall be taken to the Magistrate only in the event when the accused fails to furnish the bail bond. The provisions of Section 37 of Arms Act are mandatory and analogous to the provisions of section 436 of Cr.PC. It appears that these provisions have escaped noticed of the learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Dholpur. Hence, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but keeping in view the provisions of Section 37 of the Arms Act, do feel inclined to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner and his bail application is ordered to be allowed. 7. It is. therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Neetu, S/o Surendra in FIR No. 308/2010 of Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) together with two sureties each in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. 7. It is. therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Neetu, S/o Surendra in FIR No. 308/2010 of Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) together with two sureties each in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till the trial is concluded. 8. Learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Dholpur is directed to understand the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Shokin Kureshi @ Chota v. State of Rajasthan (supra) in its entirety. He is not required to interpret the judgment passed by the High Court, but is expected to follow the judgment. Albeit, dishonouring the judgment of the High Court is tantamount to contempt of court, but this Court restrains from initiating any action against the Presiding Judge merely for the reason that the Presiding Judge perhaps must not have understood the judgment properly. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Dholpur for his information.Bail Allowed. *******