Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1169 (RAJ)

Mahendra Gaur v. Gautam Bose

2016-08-11

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2016
ORDER : Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner-Shri Mahendra Gaur, a practicing Lawyer, has filed these two separate applications under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the respondent-accused in respect of FIR No. 241/2009 registered at Police Station Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 166, 285, 286, 287, 304-A, 304-II, 336, 337 and 427 IPC, for offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and for offence under Section 23 of the Petroleum Act, 1934. S.B.Criminal Misc.(Cancellation of Bail) Application No. 8876/2010 has been filed in respect of order dated 7.7.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 1019/2010 whereby benefit of bail was granted to the respondent-accused of this application whereas S.B.Criminal Misc.(Cancellation of Bail) Application No. 2701/2011 has been filed in respect of order dated 12.1.2011 passed by the High Court in S.B.Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 6382/2010. As both these applications for cancellation of bail arise out of the same FIR and are based on almost similar factual and legal grounds, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of these applications are that a huge fire broke-out on 29.10.2009 in the Indian Oil Terminal situated at Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur as a result of which as many as eleven persons including some officers and employees of the Indian Oil died and properties amounting to crores of rupees were completely or partly destroyed. In respect of this incident, FIR No. 241/2009 was registered on 2.11.2009 at Police Station Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur for the aforesaid offences at the instance of one Shri Preet Pal Singh and during the course of investigation respondent-accused were arrested on 2.7.2010. They filed a joint application for grant of bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate but the same was dismissed. The accused-respondents filed a joint application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and the same was decided vide order dated 7.7.2010 whereby learned Court below declined to grant benefit of bail to respondent-Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta whereas benefit of bail was granted to remaining respondents. The accused-respondents filed a joint application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and the same was decided vide order dated 7.7.2010 whereby learned Court below declined to grant benefit of bail to respondent-Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta whereas benefit of bail was granted to remaining respondents. Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta filed S.B.Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 6382/2010 before the High Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 11.1.2011. Petitioner-Shri Mahendra Gaur, who is a practising lawyer, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 7.7.2010 filed Application No. 8876/2010 on 27.9.2010 whereas the Application No. 2701/2011 was filed on 23.3.2011 with a prayer to cancel the order of bail in faour of the respondent-Ashok Kumar Gupta. 3. The main ground taken by the petitioner to challenge the orders of bail passed in favour of the respondents is that they after release on bail have grossly misused their liberty and abused their official position to interfere with the course of investigation and have attempted to tamper with the evidence and influence the material witnesses. 4. In support of the applications, petitioner appearing in person, submitted as below:- (1) Although, respondents were initially suspended from their service as soon as they were arrested in this case but they after their release on bail by grossly misusing and abusing their official position put pressure on the Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation to revoke their suspension and the Board of Directors under their pressure and influence revoked their suspension in violation of the Conduct, Discipline & Appeals Rules of Indian Oil Corporation. This fact alone is sufficient to show that the respondents are very influencing persons being high officers of the company and there is every possibility that they will interfere in the fair trial of the case if they remain enlarged on bail. This fact alone is sufficient to show that the respondents are very influencing persons being high officers of the company and there is every possibility that they will interfere in the fair trial of the case if they remain enlarged on bail. (2) The respondent-accused by misusing their release on bail and abusing their official position as high ranked officers of the Indian Oil Corporation influenced even the State of Rajasthan to get transfer of Shri Dharamveer, Assistant Public Prosecutor from the Court of Magistrate at Sanganer to a far distant place Behror as punishment as on the basis of opinion given by Shri Dharamveer offences under Sections 166, 285, 287 and 304-II IPC and for offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, which are comparatively grave offences, were added during the course of investigation in the present case which resulted in arrest of respondents on 2.7.2010. Persons who can get an honest and hard working public servant transferred from one Court to another can also easily influence the course of trial if they are allowed to remain on bail any more. (3) Accused-respondents after release on bail have filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the FIR and although after investigation charge-sheet has been filed against them but due to stay order passed by the High Court, there is no progress in the trial. Respondents are adopting all tactics to prevent early disposal of the petition. Respondents-accused are the only beneficiary due to stay order passed in the petition. (4) Respondents are so influencing person that State of Rajasthan did not chose to challenge the order of bail even in such a grave case which compelled the petitioner to file these application as a law abiding citizen. (5) Respondents are so influencing person that the Indian Oil Corporation is bearing all their litigation expenses etc . (6) Order of bail has been obtained by the respondents in their favour by concealing several material facts from the Court and also on the basis of some false and wrong facts. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-accused jointly submitted as below:- (1) None of the grounds taken by the petitioner in these applications is supported by any material and all the grounds are result of assumptions and presumptions only. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-accused jointly submitted as below:- (1) None of the grounds taken by the petitioner in these applications is supported by any material and all the grounds are result of assumptions and presumptions only. (2) Petitioner is neither an aggrieved person nor a victim as he has suffered no personal loss or injury as a result of the incident in question and, therefore, he is not entitled to challenge the bail granted to the respondents by a competent court of law. (3) It is well settled legal position that bail already granted to an accused by a Court can be cancelled only on the basis of some well settled grounds but in the present case, no such ground has been shown by the petitioner. (4) So far as respondent-Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta is concerned, bail was granted to him by the High Court after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Shri Mahendra Gaur himself and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to contend that bail has been obtained on the basis of false and wrong facts or by concealing material facts from the Court more particularly in view of the fact that it has not been explained by the petitioner what are the false and wrong facts or what material facts were concealed. Order dated 12.1.2011 shows that bail application filed by the respondent-Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta was opposed by the petitioner on each and every possible ground and all the grounds raised and submitted by the petitioner were considered and dealt with. It is also relevant to note that in the application for cancellation of bail only these grounds have been taken by the petitioner on which the application for bail was opposed by him. Bail was granted to Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta vide order dated 12.1.2011 and application for cancellation was filed on 23.1.2011 without happening of any supervening circumstances with a sole object to harass and pressurize the respondents. (5) Bail was granted to respondents of Application No. 8876/2010 vide order dated 7.7.2010 but no ground on the basis of misuse of liberty by them was raised by the petitioner in order to oppose the bail application of Shri Ashok Kudmar Gupta. (5) Bail was granted to respondents of Application No. 8876/2010 vide order dated 7.7.2010 but no ground on the basis of misuse of liberty by them was raised by the petitioner in order to oppose the bail application of Shri Ashok Kudmar Gupta. (6) Respondents had a legal remedy to file petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the FIR and also pray for stay of further proceedings in it and if the High Court after hearing the parties found it proper to stay the further proceedings in the trial Court, neither it can be said that the respondents have misused their liberty nor it can be said that the order of stay was passed under their influence. (7) Reinstatement of respondents in service is not a relevant factor to exercise discretion under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. as the suspension of respondents have been revoked under the relevant service rules after their release on bail. (8) No material has been made available on record to show that Shri Dharamveer-Assistant Public Prosecutor was transferred at the instance of the respondents or anyone or more of them. The State Government has specifically denied the allegation. (9) It is now settled that the Court cannot review its order as to-grant of bail on the ground of being unjustified, illegal or perverse and such challenge to bail order on the ground of it being illegal or contrary to law can be determined only by the Court superior to the Court which granted bail and, therefore, order of grant of bail to Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta cannot be considered by this Court on these grounds whereas it has not been shown by the petitioner how the order dated 7.7.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge is illegal, perverse, contrary to law or unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the same has been passed after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter in sufficient detail. Order dated 12.1.2011 passed by the High Court is also not illegal, perverse, unjustified or contrary to law. 6. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the cases of Abdul Basit alias Raju & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary & Anr. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754 , Guria Swayam Sevi Sansthan v. State of U.P. & Ors. 6. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the cases of Abdul Basit alias Raju & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary & Anr. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754 , Guria Swayam Sevi Sansthan v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported JT 2009 (14) SC 37, Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in JT 2009 (2) SC 211, Rambilas & Anr. v. Shekhar & Anr. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338 , R. Rathinam v. State by DSP, District Crime Branch Madurai District Madurai & Anr. reported in JT 2000 (1) SC 604, The State through the Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi reported in AIR 1978 SC 961 , Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 , Hazari Lal Dass v. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in JT 2009 (11) SC 651, Sardela Damodar v. State of A.P. & Ors. reported in 1998 Cr.L.J.277, Mst. Bhuri v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cr.Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 7319/2008-13.10.2008), Alimuddin v. State of Ranjasthan & Ors. Reported in 2009 (5) WLC (Raj.) 278 and Nand Lal v. State of Raj. (SB Cr.Misc. Bail (Canc.) Appl.No.2110/2010). 7. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record as well as the relevant legal provisions and the well settled legal position, I do not find it a fit case in which discretion conferred upon this Court under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. Is to be exercised and the bail granted to the accused-respondents be cancelled. 8. Consequently, both the applications for cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. are, hereby, dismissed.