Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 33 (RAJ)

Pankaj Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2011-01-05

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIR No. 249/2010 registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 272, 273 & 120-B IPC of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present matter are that on 29.7.2010 a building situated in Kartarpura, Jaipur was raised by the concerned police and on inspection it was found that a number of filling or empty cartoons of tin/papers of various branded levels containing palm oil, vegetable oil and vegetable ghee were lying. 3. In big cans adulterated ghee and other instruments/substances which are used for preparing the adulterated ghee were found there. The police seized the premises and lodged the report bearing FIR No. 249/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 272, 273 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused petitioner and others. The police arrested the accused petitioner in the aforesaid FIR and produced before the concerned Magistrate and thereafter obtaining remand. 4. The accused petitioner moved a bail application under Section 437 & 439 Cr.P.C. and same were dismissed by the court below. 5. Mr. K.N. Bhatt, the learned counsel for petitioner, contended that bail application was filed by the accused petitioner after filing of the challan. That the accused petitioner is in judicial lock up since long. He has further contended that in this case the police is not trying to arrest the other co-accused persons. 6. Mr. Bhatt further contended that offences under Sections 272 and 273 IPC are bailable. So far as offence under Section 420 is concerned, it is non-bailable but it is triable by First Class Magistrate. The accused petitioner is in judicial lockup since long. Hence, the accused petitioner be released on bail. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor who has been assisted by the concerned Superintendent of Police and SHO, have made the statement before this Court that accused petitioner is the main accused and the police constable and Food Inspector who are linked with the accused petitioner in the aforesaid crime have already been arrested. They have recovered approximately two tones of adulterated ghee from the possession of the accused petitioner and the accused petitioner along with Shrawan Singh were found indulged in preparing the adulterated ghee in the firm owned by Krishan Sharma and Pankaj Sharma. 8. They have recovered approximately two tones of adulterated ghee from the possession of the accused petitioner and the accused petitioner along with Shrawan Singh were found indulged in preparing the adulterated ghee in the firm owned by Krishan Sharma and Pankaj Sharma. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that bail application of co-accused Shrawan Singh has already been dismissed who is having criminal record of about nine cases and the present accused petitioner Pankaj Sharma is also having criminal record of about four cases pending before Police Stations namely Ashok Nagar, Bagru, Mahesh Nagar and again Police Station Mahesh Nagar bearing No. 70/2003, 273/2009, 00/2008 and 249/2010 respectively and such type of offenders like the present petitioner be not given the benefit of bail under the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available in the case diary. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, this Court would like to observe that to meet out the ends of justice the police agency is always expected to conduct the investigation in a fair and proper manner so as to safeguard the innocent persons. It would be further relevant to observe that the persons like the present accused petitioner who are indulged in such type of activities which are causing grave injuries to the health of public at large with a motive to deceive the people in the garb of supplying the adulterated food products and earning lot of money, should not be granted the indulgence of bail and thus this Court has come to the conclusion to dismiss the bail application of the petitioner. 11. Consequently, the bail application is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. 12. However, in the interest of justice, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.