Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2029 (RAJ)

Gajanand v. State of Rajasthan

2021-10-26

DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

body2021
JUDGMENT Bail Application No. 13531/2021 (Gajanand v. State) Learned counsel Mr. Menaria appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner Gajanand stated that the file of this bail application has wrongly been attached with the S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13530/2021 titled as "Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan"; that the present bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in regard to FIR No. 28/2021 of Police Station Rajaldesar, District Churu whereas another bail application (No. 13530/2021) has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No. 27/2021 of the same Police Station Rajaldesar, District Churu and, therefore, the present bail application may kindly be ordered to be detached from the file of S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13530/2021 titled as "Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan". In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the Office is directed to detach the file of Bail Application No. 13531/2021 from the file of S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13530/2021 titled as "Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan". As requested by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, list the matter after Deepawali Vacations. In the meantime, learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call for the case diary/factual report/antecedents of the accused- petitioner and produce the same before the Court on the next date of hearing. Bail Application No. 13530/2021 (Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan): Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner (Manoj Kumar) as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. While arguing the bail application of the accused Manoj Kumar, learned counsel Mr. A.R. Godara appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that the accused-petitioner is the Manager of Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Parsaneu; that the present FIR (No. 27/2021, PS Rajaldesar, District Churu) has been lodged by him against four persons; that the goods have been loaded by the accused-petitioner but the same has not been delivered by the transporter at the destination, i.e., warehouses; that the amount which was received against selling of goods has been deposited by the transporter; that a Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the co-accused Gajanand seeking quashing of FIR in question which has been registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1779/2021 titled as "Gajanand Sihag & Ors. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the co-accused Gajanand seeking quashing of FIR in question which has been registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1779/2021 titled as "Gajanand Sihag & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr."; that in reply to the aforesaid petition, the State Government had replied that, the involvement of Gajanand, Pramod Kajla, Rakesh Kumar and Devendra Kumar is prima-facie proved; that one another petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the present petitioner which has been registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3724/2021 titled as "Manoj Kumar v. State of /Rajasthan." seeking fair investigation which was connected with the petition filed by the accused Gajanand along one another petition registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1781/2021 titled as "Gajanand Sihag & ors. v. State & Anr."; that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 18.09.2021; that no recovery or investigation is pending against the accused-petitioner; that the amount in question has already been deposited by the transporter Mr. Pramod Kajla; that the trial will take time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the bail application of the accused-petitioner, stated that the cost of the crop of 87 farmers has to be deposited but the amount as deposited by the accused Pramod Kajla is not sufficient even for 25 farmers; that the proper quantity of the goods have not been loaded by the accused-petitioner, therefore, benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the fact that the allegations levelled against the accused-petitioner in the FIR are very serious and looking to the fact to the fact that as per prosecution, proper quantity of goods have not been loaded by the accused-petitioner, I do not find it to be a fit case for granting the benefit of bail to the accused- petitioner, at least, before filing of the charge-sheet. Resultantly, the instant bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner, Manoj Kumar S/o Mukna Ram, is rejected.