Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 942 (RAJ)

Nikhil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2023-04-27

RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

body2023
ORDER 1. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 363/2022, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 120 B of the IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the allegations leveled in the FIR against the petitioner are far from truth; that no money is due to the petitioner; that co-accused namely Nitesh Kumar and Vishnu have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of an audit report which cannot be a ground to reject the anticipatory bail. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor on the strength of the case diary submits that the allegations against the present petitioner are substantiated by the evidence brought on record during the course of investigation; that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount, which he has recovered from the debtors of the Company 'Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited' and that amount was to be deposited by the petitioner in the said company, but he embezzled the amount for his personal use. Highlighting the noncooperation in the investigation by the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that in view of the nature of gravity of offences, the benefit of anticipatory bail should not be accorded to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the case diary. 6. Anticipatory bail may be granted when there is material on record to show that prosecution against the petitioner is inherently doubtful or there is material on record to show that there is a possibility of false implication. It is also well settled law that while considering the question of grant of anticipatory bail, the Court, prima facie has also to look into the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and the role of the petitioner. 7. It is also well settled law that while considering the question of grant of anticipatory bail, the Court, prima facie has also to look into the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and the role of the petitioner. 7. In the instant case, the material available on record prima facie does not, in any manner, reflect that the prosecution is inherently doubtful or there is possibility of false implication. The elements of criminality is prima facie involved. It is alleged against the petitioner that while working as a field officer in the above company, he did not deposit the loan installments in the company after collecting it from the various debtors of the company in criminal conspiracy with other co-employees who are co-accused. While doing so, an amount of approximate Rupees Eight Lakhs has been alleged to be embezzled in the matter of present FIR and has been converted for his personal use. The alleged crime has been committed, while working as an employee of the company, not only with the debtors, but also with the company. 8. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the role of the petitioner, severity of the punishment and the impact of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, I do not find any ground for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed. 9. It is clarified that whatever is discussed or observed hereinabove is only a prima facie view of the Court and shall not tantamount to any expression of opinion on the merits of the case.