Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2228 (RAJ)

Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-12-10

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Since all the above bail applications filed by the accused-petitioners relate to F.I.R. No. 418/2013 registered at Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur under Sections 5, 6, 8, 9(1) of the Rajasthan Bovine Act and Section 11(1) (Ka) (Gha) (Da) of the Prevention of Cruelty on Animal Act, 1960, they are being heard together and disposed by this common order.Brief facts as narrated in S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 10190 of 2013 are as under: "on 28.8.2013 the complainant Omprakash, Police Inspector/S.H.O. lodged a written report against the accused-petitioners and other at Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City (East) with regard to an incident alleged to have taken place on 27.8.2013 alleging therein that from 15 trucks the police has recovered total 439 cattle and alleged that same were being transported for the purpose of slaughtering. On the basis of the above mentioned report the police registered a criminal case bearing F.I.R. No. 418/2013 for alleged offence under Sections 5, 6, 8, 9(1) of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and Section 11(1) (Ka)(Gha) (Da) of the Prevention of Cruelty on Animal Act, 1960 and investigation commenced. After investigation the accused-petitioners were arrested. The accused-petitioners filed bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Jaipur Metropolitan, who vide his order dated 3.9.2013 rejected the bail application. The accused-petitioner Hariom, who filed Third Bail Application No. 10190 of 2013, in the first instance the accused-petitioner Hariom S/o Jaman Singh filed bail application bearing No. 8959 of 2013 before this Court along with 29 co-accused persons and this Court vide order dated 19.9.2013 rejected the bail application and the accused-petitioner and 29 co-accused persons were given liberty to file bail application before the Trial Court after filing of the challan. The accused-petitioner Hem Singh, who filed Third Bail Application No. 10190 of 2013 along with Hariom, in the first instance filed bail application bearing No. 9010 of 2013 before this Court along with 135 co-accused persons and this Court vide order dated 19.9.2013 rejected the bail application and the accused-petitioner and 135 co-accused persons were given liberty to file bail application before the Trial Court after filing of the challan. The accused-petitioners filed the Bail Application No. 10190 of 2013 describing it as a Third bail application but from the record it is clear that is a second bail application. It may also be submitted that along with the bail application the accused-petitioners Hariom and Hem Singh filed a certified copy of the order dated 3.9.2013 earlier filed by the accused-petitioners along with the first bail application. In the Third Bail Application No. 11837 of 2013 filed by Ram Ratan, it appears that the accused-petitioner Hariom son of Jaman Singh filed Bail Application No. 323 of 2013 before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Jaipur Metropolitan along with 38 co-accused persons and the same was rejected vide order dated 30.10.2013. In the Bail Application No. 10969 filed by Rajendra Singh described the bail application as fourth bail application. Rajendra Singh filed Bail Application No. 8965 of 2013 and the same was rejected by this Court on 19.9.2013. It may be submitted that in the Bail Application of Hetram No. 8961 of 2013 the name of Rajendra Singh S/o Kude Singh was also mentioned at S. No. 25 and thus he described his Bail Application No. 10969 of 2013 as Fourth Bail Application. Along with application he has filed certified copy of the order 30.10.2013 passed in Bail Application No. 318 of 2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Jaipur Metropolitan rejecting his bail application along with four persons. In Bail Application No. 11842 of 2013 filed by the accused-petitioner Amar Singh, described the bail application as Fourth Bail Application. Amar Singh filed the certified copy of the order passed in Bail Application No. 318 of 2013 before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Jaipur Metropolitan rejecting his bail application and his name was mentioned at No. 2 in the said order. The accused-petitioner Ram Ratan filed Bail Application No. 11837 of 2013 describing it as a third bail application and he has filed the certified copy of the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur rejecting his bail application along with 38 persons and his name was mentioned at S. No. 26 in that order. The accused-petitioner Bhure Singh filed Bail Application No. 11838 of 2013 describing his bail application as third bail application, in the certified copy of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 rejecting his bail application by the order dated 30.10.2013 his name was shown at No. 10 in that order. Similarly the accused-petitioner filed Bail Application No. 11839 of 2013 describing his bail application as Fourth bail application and he has also filed certified copy of the order dated 30.10.2013 rejecting his bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 and his name in the Bail Application No. 318 of 2013 was shown at No. 3. The accused-petitioner Dharam Pal Singh filed Bail Application No. 11840 of 2013, describing it to be as Fourth Bail Application. He has also filed certified copy of the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by . the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 the Bail Application No. 318 of 2013 and his name was shown at S. No. 4. The accused-petitioner Netrapal Singh filed Bail Application No. 11841 of 2013 showing his bail application as Fourth Bail Application. He has enclosed the certified copy of the order dated 30.10.2013 passed in Bail Application No. 318 of 2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur rejecting his bail application and his name was shown at No. 5 in the said order." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the accused-petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and the police has filed a challan/charge sheet on 25.10.2013 against the accused-petitioners; investigation is kept pending against some of the co-accused persons under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and trial will take time, hence they should be released on bail. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor of has opposed the same. He has contended that the police had arrested the accused-petitioners on the ground that they were transporting the animals in a cruel manner and they had got no license or the permit to transport the animals and all the animals were tide with ropes. Learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that such type of offences are increasing day by day in the State of Rajasthan, hence they should not be released on bail. Learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that such type of offences are increasing day by day in the State of Rajasthan, hence they should not be released on bail. The learned Public Prosecutor has also contended that the Apex Court in Milk Adulteration Cases requested the Legislature to make offence of Milk Adulteration as life imprisonment and in these circumstances the , accused-petitioners who have committed the offence as alleged of transportation of animals and in transportation two calves died, in such types of heinous offence the offence should also be made punishable with life imprisonment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire facts and material on record. Earlier the accused-petitioners filed bail application and the same was dismissed. The accused-petitioners filed fresh bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Jaipur Metroplitam Jaipur, who vide order dated 30.10.2013 rejected the bail applications. In the order dated 30.10.2013 the Additional Sessions Judge observed as under: " vfHk;ksx i= esa vuqla/kku ds i'pkr tks urhtk lkeus vk;k gS mlls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd yxHkx lHkh vkjksihx.k mRrjizns'k ds fuoklh gS vkSj mu ij xkSoa'kh; i'kqvksa dks dzwjrkiw.kZ <+ax ls jktLFkku dh lhek ls ckgj o/k gsrq ys tkus dk xaHkhj vkjksi gSA vfHk;qDr uokc [kka o vU; ds fo:) /kkjk 173 ( 8 ) n0iz0la0 ds rgr vuqla/kku yafcr j[kk x;k gS orZeku esa bl izdkj dh ?kVukvksa esa fujarj o`f) gks jgh gSA ek= vfHk;qDrx.k dh yEch vfHkj{kk dh vof/k ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;ksx i= ds mijksDr fu"d"kksZa dks ns[krs gq;s izkFkhZx.k dk tekur vkosnu i= vkosnu i= Lohdj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugh ik;k tkrk gSA " This Court earlier looking to the heinous nature of crime rejected the bail application of the accused-petitioners and there is no new circumstance to be considered in the case except that the accused-petitioners are in jail for some time. It is also submitted that investigation against some of the accused persons have been kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and at this stage in such types of heinous offence the accused-petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. 5. It is also submitted that investigation against some of the accused persons have been kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and at this stage in such types of heinous offence the accused-petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. 5. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I do not think it proper to accept the above eight bail applications of the accused-petitioners at this stage as there is no new ground and material change in the circumstances of the case and looking to the heinous nature of crime, all the eight bail applications are hereby dismissed. However, the Trfa\ Court is directed to conclude the trial,' pending before it, as early as possible.Bails applications rejected. *******