Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1087 (RAJ)

Pushpa Jain v. State of Raj.

2012-04-30

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This fifth bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 439 Cr.P.C. in Cr. Case No. 635/2010 pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5 Kota under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B IPC and in FIR No. 322/2008 registered at Police Station Nayapura Kota for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC and against the order dated 28.3.2012 passed Additional Sessions Judge No.5 Kota rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on June 25, 2007 a written report was lodged at Police Station Nayapura Kota that the accused petitioner while she was working as authorised agent of Postal Department obtained bogus business certificate and by which she damaged very badly to the postal department alongwith other co-accused persons. The accused petitioner was arrested on 12.9.2009. The allegation against the petitioner is that during the years 1999-2000 to 2002-2003 she cheated the postal department by showing forged documents and from various schemes drawn Rs. 8,45,959, 1303 gms. Gold and 57 wrist watches. 3. The first bail application of the accused petitioner was rejected by this court on November 11, 2009 after hearing both the parties. This court granted liberty to the petitioner to move regular bail application before the trial court immediately after framing of the charge. The trial court framed charge agianst the accused petitioner for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The Sessions Judge, Kota vide his order dated 25.1.2010 rejected the bail application of the accused petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed second bail application before this court on 4.2.2010. This Court vide order dated 5.2.2010 rejected the second bail application No. 1428/ 2010 observing as under : “I have gone through the order passed by the Sessions Judge Kota dated January 25, 2010 and the order framing charge against the accused petitioner by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Since there are serious allegations against the accused petitioner of cheating postal department of lacs of rupees, gold worth lacs of rupees ,and wrist watches by way of forged documents, at this stage, the accused petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. The bail application is thus rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.” 4. The bail application is thus rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.” 4. The petitioner filed third bail application No.8047/2010 before this court and the same was rejected on 4.10.2010, observing as under : ^^¼7½ i=koyh ij miyC/k rF;ksa ds vuq'khyu ls izdV gksrk gS fd vfHk;qä@ izkfFkZ;k us vYicpr vfHkdrkZ dh gSfl;r ls o"kZ 1999 ls ysdj 2003 rd fd, x;s vYi cpr dk;ksZ ds ek/;e ls dqy 8]45]959@& udn] 1303 xzke lksuk] 9340 xzke pkanh rFkk 57 gkFk ?kfM+;ksa dks vfHkys[k QthZokM+k djds o /kks[kk/kM+h djds] tkylkth ls] /kks[ks ls izkIr djds mä Hkkjh jkf'k dks voS/k ,oa vuqfpr <ax ls gM+ius dk dke fd;k gSA i=koyh ds vuq'khyu ls ,slk dksbZ u;k rF; izdV ugha gksrk ftlls fd bl U;k;ky; }kjk iwoZ ikfjr vkns'kksa dks ifjofrZr djrs gq, izkfFkZ;k dks tekur dh lqfo/kk iznku dh tk ldsA ftl izdkj ds xEHkhj iz—fr ds vkjksi izkfFkZ;k ds fo:) gS mUgsa n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, esa izkfFkZ;k dks tekur ij Lora= fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha le>rkA** 5. The petitioner thereafter filed bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge No.5 Kota and the Addl. Sessions Judge vide his order dated 19.1.2011 rejected the bail application of the accused petitioner on the ground that the case is at the stage of recording of the statements of the witnesses and the statements of five witnesses have already been recorded and hence there is no need to release the accused petitioner under section 437(6) Cr.P.C. when there are serious allegations of embezzlement of lacs of rupees of postal department. 6. The accused petitioner has filed fourth bail application before this Court and this court vide order dated July 13, 2011, rejected the bail application observing as under: “I have gone through the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No.5 Kota dated January 19, 2011 and the earlier orders passed by this court on the bail applications filed by the accused petitioner. It is an admitted fact that there is no change in circumstance to further consider the bail application of the accused petitioner. The prosecution has submitted a list of 30 witnesses and out of these persons statements of five witnesses have already been recorded. It is an admitted fact that there is no change in circumstance to further consider the bail application of the accused petitioner. The prosecution has submitted a list of 30 witnesses and out of these persons statements of five witnesses have already been recorded. Without commenting on the facts of the case and looking to the fact that since there are serious allegations against the accused petitioner of cheating postal department of lacs of rupees, gold worth lacs of rupees ,and wrist watches by way of forged documents, at this stage, the accused petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. The bail application is thus rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible. For these reasons this fourth bail application filed by the accused petitioner stands rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.” 7. The bail application is thus rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible. For these reasons this fourth bail application filed by the accused petitioner stands rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.” 7. The accused petitioner further filed bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge No.5 Kota, who vide order dated March 28, 2012 rejected the bail application of the accused petitioner observing as under : ^^tcfd fo}ku vfrfjä yksd vfHk;kstd us tekur vkosnu dk fojks/k djrs gq, izdV fd;k fd ;g lgh gS fd bl ekeys esa izkFkhZ;k xr dkQh le; ls vfHkj{kk esa pyh vk jgh gS] ysfdu i=koyh ij miyC/k rF;kRed fLFkfr ds vuqlkj vfHk;qäk us vYi cpr vfHkdrkZ dh gSfl;r ls o"kZ 1999 ls ysdj 2003 rd fd;s x;s vYi cpr dk;ksZ ds ek/;e ls dqy 8]45]959@& :i;s udn] 1303 xzke lksuk] 9340 xzke pkanh rFkk 57 gkFk ?kfM+;k dks vfHkys[k esa QthZokM+k djds o /kks[kk/kM+h djds] tkylkth ls /kks[ks ls izkIr dj mä Hkkjh jkf'k dks voS/k o vuqfpr <ax ls gM+ius dk dk;Z fd;k gSA ftl ij ntZ izdj.k tsjdkj gSA tgka rd bl izdj.k esa vc rd gq, fopkj.k dk iz'u gS] bl lEcU/k esa ;ksX; ,Mh'kuy ihih dk fuosnu Fkk fd blh vfHk;qäk ds fo:) blh iz—fr dk vU; izdj.k vU; U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS] bu nksuksa gh ekeyksa esa vfHk;qäk U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa pyh vk jgh gS] bl izdj.k ls lacaf/kr vly fjdkMZ@nLrkostkr mä izdj.k esa lk{; esa ryc gks pqds Fks] vU; U;k;ky; esa fopjk/khu mä izdj.k vHkh vafre LVst ij py jgk gS] vly nLrkostkr mä izdj.k esa ryc gksus ds dkj.k bl izdj.k esa vU; lkf{k;ksa ds dFku ys[kc) djus esa dqN foyEc dkfjr gqvk gS] ysfdu vHkh rd 8 xokgku~ dh lk{; ys[kc) dh tk pqdh gS] blfy;s ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ekeys esa dksbZ izxfr ugha gqbZ gksA ;ksX; ,Mh'kuy ihih us ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd bl izdj.k esa bl Lrj ij /kkjk 437¼6½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr ;g ;kfpdk iks"k.kh; ugha gS D;ksafd bl izdj.k esa vfHk;qäk ij fnukad 7-1-2010 dks vkjksi fojfpr fd;s x;s Fks] mlds ckn vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds dFku ys[kc) fd;s tk jgs gSa] vfHk;kstu lk{; izkjaHk gksus ds 60 fnol i'pkr~ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa vfHk;q:ak dh vksj ls izLrqr tekur dk pkSFkk tekur vkosnu Øekad 3654@2011 ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 13-7-2011 dks [kkfjt fd;k tk pqdk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vfHk;qäk izkfFkZ;k ftl ij xaHkhj iz—fr ds vijk/k ds vkjksi gSa] jktdks"k ds xcu dk ekeyk gS] nLrkostkr dh dwVjpuk dj /kks[kk/kM+h dkfjr djus dk vkjksi gs] ,sls ekeys esa izkfFkZ;k dks tekur dk ykHk ugha fn;k tkuk pkfg;sA mHk;i{k dh cgl ij fopkj fd;k x;kA dsl Mk;jh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izLrqr fof/k fofu'p;ksa dk llEeku voyksdu fd;k x;k o muls ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;k x;kA vfHk;qäk izkFkhZ;k ds fo:) fnukad 7-1-2010 dks vkjksi fojfpr fd;s x;s gS] mlds mijkar mldh vksj ls izLrqr tekur vkosnu mijksä foospukuqlkj bl U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt fd;s tk pqds gSA izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,slk dksbZ ifjorZu ugha gqvk gS ftlds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qäk izkFkhZ;k dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tk ldsA izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ekeys ds xq.kkoxq.k ij fVIi.kh fd;s fcuk izkFkhZ;k vfHk;qäk dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr ugha le>rh gwWA Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused petitioner has argued that the accused petitioner was arrested on 12.9.2009 and thus she has remained in jail for two years and six months. It has been argued that as per the charge sheet there are 33 witnesses cited by the prosecution to be produced during trial and the prosecution has only produced eight witnesses till 9.5.2011 and thereafter no witness has been examined as yet. There is no mistake on the part of the accused petitioner for non-examination of the witnesses. Placing reliance on Kadra Pehadiya and others vs. State of Bihar AIR 1981 SC 939 , it was argued that the case of the accused petitioner is fully covered by this judgment and she should be released on bail. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner further placed reliance on sub-section(1) and sub-section (6) of section 437 Cr.P.C. and has contended that the accused petitioner is entitled for bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed her bail application and stated that the accused petitioner cheated postal department and obtained lacs of rupees showing forged documents, in these circumstances the accused petitioner is not entitled for any sympathy from this Court. There is no change in circmstance and hence the accused petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. The ruling cited by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case. The petitioner is also accused in another case and the main documents are available in that case and the prosecution has examined prosecution witnesses in that case and on account of that delay is caused in producing further witnesses in the case. In these circumstances it was prayed that the accused petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. I have gone through the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No.5 Kota dated March 28, 2012 and the earlier orders passed by this court on the bail applications filed by the accused petitioner. It is an admitted fact that there is no change in circumstance to further consider the bail application of the accused petitioner at this stage. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.5 Kota dated March 28, 2012 and the earlier orders passed by this court on the bail applications filed by the accused petitioner. It is an admitted fact that there is no change in circumstance to further consider the bail application of the accused petitioner at this stage. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has observed in its order dated March 28, 2012 that the main documents have already been filed in another case pending trial and the witnesses were produced in that case and hence delay was caused in producing the witnesses in the instant case. The case law cited by the counsel for the accused petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case. The provisions of section 437 Cr. P. C. are also not applicable to the facts of this case. The accused petitioner is also facing similar trial in another matter against her. Without commenting on the facts of the case and looking to the fact that since there are serious allegations against the accused petitioner of cheating postal department of lacs of rupees, gold worth lacs of rupees, and wrist watches by way of forged documents, the accused petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. This fifth bail application stands rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible. For these reasons this fifth bail application filed by the accused petitioner stands rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.