Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 838 (RAJ)

Jitendra v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-06

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - These five second bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the accused-petitioners Arvind, Girdhar, Jitendra, Daamji Bhai and Lalit Gagwani, in F.I.R. No. 427/2010 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Dholpur for the offence under Sections 5/9-B, 9 C of Explosive Act, 1884 but later on during investigation offence under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. were also added. 2. Earlier the petitioners Arvind, Girdhar, Jitendra, Lalit Gagwani and Daamji filed Bail Application No. 1416 of 2011 along with accused person Sunil also. By the order of this Court dated 2.6.2011, the first bail applications of these five petitioners along with Sunil was rejected by this Court by a detailed order. Prior to it bail applications of the accused-petitioner Arvind (Bail Application No. 1/2011), accused-petitioners Girdhar, Jitendra, Damjibhai, and Lalit Gagwani along with Sunil (Bail Application No. 2/2011) were rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Dholpur vide order dated 13.1.2011. 3. Since all these five second bail applications related to F.I.R. No. 427/2010, registered at Police Station Kotwali Dholpur District Dholpur against the accused-petitioners, they are being disposed by this common order. 4. Brief facts in short are that Rajasthan Explosive and Chemical Limited Dholpur is manufacturing and supplying explosive articles throughout the country since 1981 through registered dealers. In the month of July, 2010 the police authorities of Police Station Baheriya District Sagar lodged a report for an offence under Section 9-B of the Explosives Act. In the report it was alleged by the police authorities that the supply of explosives made to M/s. Ganesh Explosives by R.E.C.L. between April 2010 to June, 2010 has been made in violation of the Explosives Rules, 2008 giving rise to an offence under Section 9- B of the Explosives Act. The said report was registered as F.I.R. No. 161/2010 on 13.7.2010. Similarly an F.I.R. No. 310/2010 came to be lodged at Police Station Chanderi, District Ashok Nagar (MP) regarding supply of explosives by R.E.C.L. to M/s. Sangam Explosive. The said F.I.R. was lodged on 26.8.2010. The said report was registered as F.I.R. No. 161/2010 on 13.7.2010. Similarly an F.I.R. No. 310/2010 came to be lodged at Police Station Chanderi, District Ashok Nagar (MP) regarding supply of explosives by R.E.C.L. to M/s. Sangam Explosive. The said F.I.R. was lodged on 26.8.2010. In the said report it was alleged that the supply made to dealer M/s. Sangam Explosives by RECL has been in contravention of Explosives Rules, 2008 leading to an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B I.P.C., and Section 9-B of Explosives Act. The Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur also registered a fresh F.I.R. against the officials of RECL, including the Managing Director which came to be registered as F.I.R. No. 427/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 5/9 B, 9 C of Explosives Act. During the investigation the police has also added offences punishable under Section 6 of Explosive Substances Act, Sections 420, 120 B, 286, 467, 468, and 471 I.P.C. During the course of investigation of F.I.R. No. 427/2010 of Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur, the accused-petitioners came to be arrested. From the F.I.Rs. it is clear that from 1.4.2010 to 15.7.2010 160 trucks of explosives from RECL were disposed in an illegal manner to the persons other than licence holders. 5. The allegation against the accused-petitioners Arvind, Girdhar, Jitendra, Daamji Bhai, and Lalit Gagwani is that the demand drafts were got prepared by them from their own Bank account openly and without any attempt to conceal their real identity. These five accused-petitioners are working as commission agents and the demand drafts in dispute were made in the regular course of business. 6. Mr. Yatin Oza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harshil J. Dholakia, advocate and Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, advocate appearing for these five accused-petitioners drawn the attention of this Court towards the order of the Apex Court dated 2.9.2011 and thereafter corrected by the Apex Court dated 7.9.2011. The learned Senior Counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated 30.3.2012 of the Apex Court. and has contended that the accused-petitioners are in judicial lock up since 16 months and the cases of these five accused-petitioners are similar and on identical footing of the case of Sunil, who has been granted bail by the Apex Court by the above order dated 30.3.2012. and has contended that the accused-petitioners are in judicial lock up since 16 months and the cases of these five accused-petitioners are similar and on identical footing of the case of Sunil, who has been granted bail by the Apex Court by the above order dated 30.3.2012. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the next date in the trial Court is 11.5.2012. In these circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel has argued that these five petitioners should also be enlarged on bail. 7. Mr. Peevush Kumar, the Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioners and stated that the accused-petitioners are involved in obtaining illegal delivery of 160 trucks of explosives and thereafter selling the same to the persons other than licencee. The accused-petitioners are involved in a case of illegally obtaining explosives and there are serious allegations against the accused-petitioners and at this stage they are not entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor further opposed the bail applications of these five accused-petitioners on the ground that there is no new circumstance to be considered by this Court for enlarging the accused-petitioners on bail. 8. I have learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 9. The Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No. 1 Dholpur while rejecting the bail applications of these accused-petitioners in F.I.R. No. 427/2010, observed as under: " dsl Mk;jh es ,slh lk{; vkbZ gS fd fdl izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fdl [kkrs esa jktLFkku ,DlIyksflo ,.M dsehdy fy0 ls izkIr foLQksVd dh ewY; jkf'k dk Hkqxrku gqvkA bl izdkj dsl Mk;jh ij tks rF; izFke n'"V;k izek.kLo:i vk;s gS muds vk/kkj ij dwV jfpr nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij foLQksVd dh fMyhojh izkIr djuk foLQksVd vukf/kd'r O;fDr;ksa ds gkFk ls tkuk rFkk mlds ewY; dk Hkqxrku izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDrx.k ds cSad [kkrksa ls gksus ds rF; gS tks lEiw.kZ ekeys ds J'[kykc) gksys rFkk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDrx.k dh lfyIrrk dks izFke n'"Vr;k izekf.kr djrs gSA " 10. I have also gone through the challan papers enclosed with the bail applications, and the observations of the Addl. Sessions Judge based on the material available on case diary mentioned above. I have also gone through the challan papers enclosed with the bail applications, and the observations of the Addl. Sessions Judge based on the material available on case diary mentioned above. I have observed in my earlier order dated 2.6.2011 that "it has come on record that the accused-petitioners were involved in the disposal of 160 trucks of explosives illegally collected from the RECL and thereafter sold the same to the persons other than licencee of the explosive in a complete chain of circumstances. It is a case of illegal diversion of explosives for criminal activities. The police authorities had succeeded in unearthing a considerable amount of illegally stocked explosives of 160 trucks from the accused-petitioners and other co-accused involved in such a case. Sale of illegal explosives is a direct threat to the security of our Nation. 11. At this stage when the accused-petitioners are involved in a henious case of explosive material collected illegally and sold the same to the firms which were not licencees in the explosive, I do not think it proper to enlarge these five accused-petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and their bail applications stand dismissed. 12. The trial Court is directed to hear the arguments of the accused-petitioners on the framing of charge on 11.5.2012 and proceed further in accordance with law and thereafter in case the charge is made out against the accused-petitioners to record the statements of the 65 prosecution witnesses within a period. of six months thereafter. The trial Court is further directed to give two months time to the accused-petitioners to produce their defence. One month time is granted to the trial Court thereafter to hear the arguments of both the parties. In this manner the trial Court will conclude the trial within a period of nine months positively. I have passed these directions with a view that the counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners again and again argue that more than period of 16 months have been passed and the accused persons are behind the bars without any progress in the trial. 13. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send the copy of this order forthwith to the trial Court. The petitioners are free to move bail applications before the trial Court after recording of the statements of the material witnesses. 13. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send the copy of this order forthwith to the trial Court. The petitioners are free to move bail applications before the trial Court after recording of the statements of the material witnesses. At this stage, the learned Senior Advocate has prayed to this Court that the trial Court will not take into consideration the observations made by this Court and the same will not come in their way while deciding the bail applications. 14. The directions for recording of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and concluding the trial within a period of 9 months will come into force only after passing of the order by the Apex Court in the SLP (Criminal) No. 8402 of 2011.Bail applications dismissed. *******