Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 107 (RAJ)

Maya Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-18

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This bail application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a complaint before the court below, which was later on sent for investigation to the concerned police station under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation whereby an FIR No. 219/2015 for offences mentioned therein was registered at P.S. Kardhani, Distt. Jaipur. The petitioners apprehending his/her/their arrest moved the anticipatory bail application before the Court below, but the same was dismissed. Hence, this bail application has been filed by the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners is/are innocent and he/she/they has/have been falsely implicated in this matter. He has further contended that a false complaint had been submitted against the petitioners and due to which he/she/they moved the bail application before the Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Coordinate Bench of this Court had released the accused persons on anticipatory bail in similar matter vide order dated 15th May, 2015 passed in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 5115/2015 (Smt. Rampati Meena v. State of Rajasthan), which was subsequently challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the complainant by filing SLP. The said SLP had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 7th August, 2015. The relevant part of the order dated 7th August, 2015 is reproduced as under: "Permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. Exemption from filing O.T. is granted. We do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted the following orders of this Court (Bench at Jaipur) as well as the Principal Seat of this Hon'ble Court, whereby in the similar matters accused persons has/have been enlarged on bail: (i) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 6539/2015 (Lili Devi v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 22.6.2015 (ii) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 6890/2015 (Smt. Dholi Devi @ Dholi Bai v. State of Rajasthan) decided on 30.6.2015 (iii) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 6167/2015 (Hazari Lal v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 5.6.2015 (iv) S.B. Cr. Misc. Misc. Bail Application No. 6539/2015 (Lili Devi v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 22.6.2015 (ii) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 6890/2015 (Smt. Dholi Devi @ Dholi Bai v. State of Rajasthan) decided on 30.6.2015 (iii) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 6167/2015 (Hazari Lal v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 5.6.2015 (iv) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 4461/2015; (Smt. Saroj Devi v. The State of Rajasthan); decided on 11.5.2015 (v) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 5365/2015; (Banwari Lal v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 26.5.2015 (vi) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 5335/2015 (Pooja v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 25.5.2015 (vii) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 9515/2015 (Smt. Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 28.8.2015 (viii) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 8655/2015 (Nmeena @ Nameena v. The State of Rajasthan); decided on 21.8.2015 (ix) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 5653/2015 (Ramavtar Jat v. The State of Rajasthan); decided on 23.5.2015 (x) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 5729/2015 (Smt. Bina v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 3rd June, 2015 (xi) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 6422/2015 (Bila Devi @ Vimla v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 18.6.2015 (xii) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 5727/2015 (Smt. Asha Devi v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 5.6.2015 (xiii) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 4020/2015 (Smt. Umi Devi v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 25.5.2015 (xiv) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 6349/2015 (Pappu Ram v. The State of Rajasthan); decided on 16.6.2015 (xv) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 7645/2015 (Jasoda & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 30.7.2015 (xvi) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 6416/2015 (Smt. Sumitra Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 18.6.2015 (xvii) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 2733/2015 (Mannu v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 19.5.2015 (xviii) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 4091/2015 (Smt. Sangeeta v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 25.5.2015 (xix) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 3834/2015 (Smt. Mamta Devi v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 21.5.2015 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also cited a judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Sameera Bano (Smt.) & Ors. Misc. Bail Application No. 4091/2015 (Smt. Sangeeta v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 25.5.2015 (xix) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 3834/2015 (Smt. Mamta Devi v. State of Rajasthan); decided on 21.5.2015 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also cited a judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Sameera Bano (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan; reported in 2007 (2) DNJ (Raj.) (F.B.) 858 in which it was held that disqualification cannot be adjudicated by competent authority under Section 39(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996; and contended that this is the bail application. Learned counsel has further contended that in some of the cases, the election petition was preferred and which is pending for adjudication before the competent court, in which the Coordinate Bench of this Court has stayed the adverse order passed against the Sarpanch. He has further contended that it is the matter which arose due to political vengeance and it will take long time to conclude. In this view of the matter, learned counsel has requested that in the light of the afore-cited cases where the Coordinate Bench of this Court (Bench at Jaipur) as well as the Principal Seat of this Court and even the Sessions Judge have enlarged the accused persons on anticipatory bail, on the ground of parity, this Court should also pass an order allowing the bail application filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C and he/she/they should also be released on bail. Learned counsel undertakes that if the petitioners is/are released on bail, then he/she/they will submit the relevant documents, which were filed by him/her/them at the time of filing the nomination paper, or any other documents, as required by the IO/SHO, to the IO/SHO concerned, within a period of 15 days from today. 7. On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State have opposed the same. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 9. It is a fact that in some of the cases, the Coordinate Bench allowed the bail application filed by the accused persons under Section 438 Cr.P.C and when the complainant party approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of filing SLP, their SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 9. It is a fact that in some of the cases, the Coordinate Bench allowed the bail application filed by the accused persons under Section 438 Cr.P.C and when the complainant party approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of filing SLP, their SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Meaning thereby, the order passed by the High Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C was affirmed. It is also a fact in some of the cases, after depositing the relevant documents by the accused persons with the Investigating Officer, the Coordinate Bench of this Court granted the anticipatory bail. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to pass the following order: "This bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Smt. Maya Devi D/o Bhomaram W/o Dhannalal Raigar, in connection with aforesaid FIR, they/he/she shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer, provided he/she/they furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakh), with two sureties of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) each to their/his/her satisfaction on the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will submit the relevant documents, which were submitted by him/her/them at the time of filing the nomination papers, or any other documents, as required by the IO/SHO, with the IO/SHO concerned within a period of 15 days from today. (ii) If the petitioners do/does not deposit the aforesaid documents within the stipulated time period, as mentioned above, then the IO/SHO concerned will be free to move a cancellation of bail application of the petitioners in accordance with law. (iii) That the petitioners shall make himself/herself/themselves available for interrogation by a police officer, as and when required; (iv) That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (v) That the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; (vi) That the petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she/they is/are accused or suspected."