Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 926 (RAJ)

Ravi @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan

2016-07-05

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2016
ORDER : This third bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Anurag Soni submitted a written report on 1.7.2013 at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (North), on the basis of which an FIR No. 173/2013 came to be registered for the offence under sections 457 and 380 IPC. Investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation the accused petitioner was arrested. Thereafter the accused petitioner moved bail application before the trial court which was dismissed on 28.8.2014. Against the said order the accused petitioner moved bail application before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.9.2014 with liberty to the accused petitioner to move bail application before the trial court after recording the statements of material witnesses. Thereafter, the accused petitioner moved bail application before the trial court which was dismissed on 23.12.2015. Against the said order the accused petitioner moved second bail application before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.1.2016 but the trial court was directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. Thereafter, the accused petitioner has moved instant third bail application before this Court. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner has submitted that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case as he has nothing to do with the alleged incident. Counsel has submitted that the accused petitioner is in judicial lock up since long and no purpose will be served in keeping him behind the Bar. Counsel has further submitted that co-accused Santoshi has been released on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 21.4.2016 and the case of the present accused petitioner stands on better footings. Hence, the accused petitioner be released on bail. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the accused petitioner is a habitual offender as 14 criminal cases are pending against him at different police stations related to theft, robbery, making conspiracy relating to robbery, Arms Act, beating etc. Thus looking to the fact that the accused petitioner is a habitual offender and 14 criminal cases are pending against him, the third bail application filed by the accused petitioner be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner and learned PP for the State and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. Thus looking to the fact that the accused petitioner is a habitual offender and 14 criminal cases are pending against him, the third bail application filed by the accused petitioner be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner and learned PP for the State and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. Looking to the facts of the case that total 14 criminal cases are pending against the accused petitioner relating to theft, robbery, making conspiracy relating to robbery, Arms Act, beating etc. as also the fact that the accused petitioner is a habitual offender, at this stage it is not a fit case where the accused petitioner can be granted indulgence of bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. However, I am in agreement with the observations made by the learned court below in the order dated 28.8.2014, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: ^^;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k vkthou dkjkokl ;k e`R;qn.M+ ls n.M+uh; vijk/k ugha gS] vuql/kkau ds nkSjku tks lk{; ,d= dh xbZ gS mlls dgha Hkh ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDr dks izdj.k esa feF;k :i ls vkfyIr fd;k x;k gksA vuqla/kku i=koyh layfXur vkijkf/kd lwph ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ@eqyfte ds fo:) iksjlk o Xokfy;j esa pksjh] ywV] ywV dh lkft’k djus] vkElZ ,DV o ekjihV lac/kh dqy 14 izadj.k ntZ gS] ftlls izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk vkijkf/kd pfj= gh mtkxj gksrk gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ij ifjoknh ds edku esa izPNUu x`g Hksnu dj djhc 800 xzke lksuk o 2&1@4 fdyks pknha o rhu yk[k nl gtkj uxn :Ik;s pksjh fd, tkus lac/kh XkaHkhj vijk/k dk vkjksi gS] pksjh xbZ laifŸk dh dher yk[kks esa gS rFkk izdj.k vuqla/kkuk/khu gSA vktdy pksjh dh ?kVukvksa esa fujarj o`f) gks jgh gS] ftlls vke ukxfjd viuh laifŸk ds izfr vius vkidks vlqjf{kr eglwl djus yxk gSA vr% bl LVst ij izdj.k ds xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ er O;Dr fd, fcuk izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa] n.M dh ek=k] vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk ,oa pksjh dh laifŸk ds ewY; o mijksDr iwoZ esa ntZ izdj.kks dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dh lqfo/kk dk ykHk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha ikrk gwa vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk tekur ds vkosnu i= Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA^^ In the result, the third bail application filed by the accused petitioner is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible.