Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2110 (RAJ)

Purshottam Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan

2013-11-26

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT : - Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 11469 of 2013 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 86/2011 registered at Police Station Bapawar Kalan, Distt. Kota for offence under Section 420 and 406 IPC and against the order dated 24.10.2013 of Special Judge ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Kota in Criminal Misc. Bail No. 146/2013 dismissing the bail application of the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. The first bail application of the accused petitioner No. 57 of 2012 was rejected by this court vide order dated April 9, 2012 and the petitioner was permitted to file bail application before the trial court after framing of the charge. An FIR No. 86/2011 came to be registered at Police Station Bapawar Kalan, Distt. Kota at the instance of a complaint lodged by one Rohtash and 34 others persons on 21.8.2011 against the accused petitioner and some other persons for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. 3. After filing of the challan, the accused petitioner filed bail application before the trial court and the trial court after a detailed order rejected the bail application of the accused petitioner. The accused petitioner filed second bail application No. 10706 of 2012 before this court and the same was withdrawn by the accused petitioner. This court rejected the second bail application on July 1, 2013 with the liberty to the accused petitioner to file a bail application afresh before the trial Court after recording the statements of the material witnesses. After recording of the statements of some of the witnesses the accused petitioner filed fresh bail application before the trial Court and the trial court vide order dated 24.10.2013 rejected the bail application by a detailed order. 4. After rejection of bail by the trial court the accused petitioner filed this third bail application on 18.11.2013. Mr. Rohan Jain, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has argued that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused petitioner has committed any offence which is punishable with death sentence or life imprisonment. The accused petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and he is an innocent person. The co-accused has been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the case of the accused petitioner is at par as that of the co-accused. The accused petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and he is an innocent person. The co-accused has been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the case of the accused petitioner is at par as that of the co-accused. The accused petitioner is in jail for the last two year and looking to the bulky charge sheet and list of the witnesses the trial will take considerable long time. 5. Mr. Peeyush Kumar Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. It has been argued by the Public Prosecutor that the accused petitioner is involved in the case as per the statements recorded before the trial court and the trial court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case rejected the bail application of the accused petitioner. The Public Prosecutor further stated that there is no new ground to be considered for granting bail to the petitioner. It was seriously objected that the accused petitioner is not entitled to be given the benefit of bail looking to the serious allegations against him as he has misappropriated lakhs of rupees of farmers, who have jointly filed the complaint against him and others. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the order of the trial court and the copies of the statements of the material witnesses filed along with the bail application and also perused the other material on record. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the order of the trial court and the copies of the statements of the material witnesses filed along with the bail application and also perused the other material on record. The trial court in the order dated 24.10.2013 rejected the bail application of the accused petitioner observing as under: ^^eSaus mHk;i{kksa }kjk izLrqr rdksZ ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA mHk;i{kksa }kjk izLrqr rdksZ ds izdk'k esa i=koyh ij miyC/k laiw.kZ lk{; o vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls izFke n`"V;k lkeus vkrk gS fd xzke cikoj esa QeZ ca'khyky] ckcwyky [kaMsyoky ds uke ls lapkfyr gksdj mDr QeZ dks ca'khyky [kaMsyoky rFkk mlds iq= Hkqous'k ,oa fnus'k] izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr iq:"kksRre ,oa ftrsUnz o fd'ku [k.Msyoky lapkfyr djrs jgs gSA bl O;kikj ds rgr fd;s x;s vuqla/kku esa ladfyr lk{; vfHkys[k ls ;g Hkh izFke n`"V;k lkeus vkrk gS fd d`"kdksa }kjk fn;s x;s d`f"k thUlksa dk iSlk muds }kjk fn;s x;s d`f"k thUlksa dk iSlk muds }kjk d`"kdksa dks udn fn;k tkrk o dHkh iSlk o thUl mDr QeZ ds ikl crkSj vekur jgrs FksA blh Øe esa lacaf/kr yxHkx 164 d`"kdksa ds d`f"k thUl dh jde dk Hkqxrku mDr QeZ }kjk fnukad 18-8-2011 dks fd;s tkus dk Hkjkslk mDr QeZ ds lapkydksa }kjk d`"kdksa dks fn;k tkdj mDr frfFk ls iwoZ gh QeZ ds mijksDr lapkyd e; ifjokj ds xzke cikoj ls viuk O;kikj can dj Qjkj gks x;s rFkk mDr QeZ }kjk lacaf/kr 174 d`"kdksa dks thUl o jkf'k dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA bl ij mijksDr ihfM+r 34 d`"kdksa ifjoknhx.k }kjk izLrqr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ;g ekeyk izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr o vU; vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) ntZ gksdj vfLrRo esa vk;k gS] tks orZeku esa mijksDrkuqlkj U;k;ky; v/khuLFk esa vUoh{kkjr gS ftlesa vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus ds i'pkr~ ih-MCY;w-1 yxk;r ih-MCY;w- 8 ds c;ku ys[k c) fd;s tk pqds gSA iwoZ esa U;k;ky; vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k la[;k 1] dksVk }kjk vius vkns'k fnukad 1-6-2012 ls vLohdkj fd;s x;s izkFkhZ ds tekur vkosnu ds i'pkr~ izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr }kjk izLrqr tekur vkosnu fnukad 1-7-2013 ds }kjk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB t;iqj }kjk mijksDr mYysf[kr tekur ;kfpdk esa funsZ'k nsrs gq, [kkfjt fd;k x;k gS ftlds vk/kkj ij ;g vkosnu iqu% izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vc rd ys[kc) dh xbZ rkfRod lk{; ds voyksdu ls mldh ekeys esa lac)rk izFke n`"V;k lkeus vkrh gSA izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr ds fo:) xaHkhj izd`fr ds vijk/k vkjksi gSA ekeys esa ,slh dksbZ vge ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk ifjorZu lkeus ugha vkrk gS ftlds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr tekur dk gdnkj gks x;k gks ,slk ekuk tkosA vr% mijksDr leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, ekeys ds xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ fVIi.kh u djrs gq, izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr dks bl ekeys esa tekur dh lqfo/kk iznku fd;k tkuk fdlh Hkh n`f"V ls U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA** 7. I am in agreement with the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioner. The trial court without commenting on the merits of the case observed that the accused petitioner is involved in the case and there is no new material to be considered in the case. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view the accused petitioner is not entitled for any bail at this stage. The accused petitioner has committed the offence under sections 420 and 406 IPC cheating villagers of lakhs of rupees. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, this third bail application filed by the accused petitioner stands rejected. However, it is directed that the trial court may conclude the trial as early as possible.