Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 5 (RAJ)

Gordhan Ram v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-01-03

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 250/2019, Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur for the offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence alleged in the present case is triable by the Magistrate. He further submits that the petitioner is being picked-up by the Police time and again by involving him in a totally false and fabricated case. Learned counsel submits that the charge-sheet in the case has been filed. He further submits that since the petitioner is being falsely implicated in all these cases by the Police, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Metro in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2466/2021. Paragraph 7 of the said order shows the list of 38 cases which have been filed against the petitioner pending from 2007 to 2021. The cases also reflected that they are almost of the same nature. The petitioner has been enlarged on bail in some of the cases, considering the fact that the offences are triable by the Magistrate. However, this Court feels that the liberty granted by the Court's by enlargement of the petitioner on bail has been grossly misused by him by involvement in the offences of the like nature repeatedly. The enlargement of the person on bail is always on the ground that he will not involve himself or commit the offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspect of the commission of which he is suspected. The involvement of the petitioner in the offences of like nature on 38 occasions clearly shows that he is misusing the indulgence granted by the Courts by enlargement of the petitioner on bail. The conduct of the petitioner shows that the society at large is suffering on account of the involvement of the petitioner in such crimes. 6. The involvement of the petitioner in the offences of like nature on 38 occasions clearly shows that he is misusing the indulgence granted by the Courts by enlargement of the petitioner on bail. The conduct of the petitioner shows that the society at large is suffering on account of the involvement of the petitioner in such crimes. 6. It is observed that in the recent times, the incidents of the like nature in which the petitioner is involved, are increasing multi-fold times causing fear and insecurity in the society. This Court feels that the persons like petitioner cannot be given liberty to cause unrest in the society by repeatedly involving themselves into the crimes. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar V/s. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 which is held as under:- "12. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar V/s. Ashis Chatterjee: (2010) 14 SCC 496 , while dealing with the court's role to interfere with the power of the High Court to grant bail to the accused, the Court observed that it is to be seen that the High Court has exercised this discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in catena of judgments on that point. The Court proceeded to enumerate the factors: 9...... among other circumstances, the factors [which are] to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i). whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii). Nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii). Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction (iv). Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v). Character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi). Likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii). Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii). Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is not in a position to dispute the fact that 38 cases are pending against the present petitioner, which are of the same nature. 9. Therefore, in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact that there is every likelihood and possibility of the petitioner being involved in commission of the offence, if he is enlarged on bail. 10. 9. Therefore, in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact that there is every likelihood and possibility of the petitioner being involved in commission of the offence, if he is enlarged on bail. 10. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the present bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed at this stage.