Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Subhash Garg Son Of Surajmal Garg vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 January, 2022
Author: Chandra Kumar Songara
Bench: Chandra Kumar Songara
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 193/2022
Subhash Garg Son Of Surajmal Garg, Resident Of Pipaliya Mandi,
District Mandsor (Madhya Pradesh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Upman, Advocate (through
video conferencing)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahala, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA Order 28/01/2022 This anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 101/2021 registered at Police Station Misroli, District Jhalawar for the offence under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(D) and 7 of the E.C. Act, 1955 and Section 12 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the said property and also a lot of investment was done on the premises to revive the fertilizer plant. As per report dated 16.07.2021, site was found satisfactory. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's firm also submitted a detailed representation to address the same on 06.09.2021. Learned counsel further submits that licensing procedure of the firm of the petitioner was under process and the (Downloaded on 04/02/2022 at 08:49:48 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMB-193/2022] petitioner informed that the same was very much lying in the premises. Petitioner was in no way connected with the old business of the firm as he had recently purchased it. Learned counsel further submits that despite all the transparent means adopted by the petitioner to revive an old establishment, the Investigating Agency ought to give notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. to the accused persons. Learned counsel further submits that from the FIR and evidence collected during the course of investigation, no case is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel further further submits that Section 7 of the EC Act is bailable. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Guahati High Court in AB No.1205/2017 (Shri Jayanta Kumar Das Vs. State of Assam), decided on 27.10.2017. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be granted.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.
During the course of argument, learned Public Prosecutor has produced case diary as well as factual report for perusal and submitted that as per factual and FSL report, sample of the alleged fertilizer, taken in the present case found spurious. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner may be rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner looking to the (Downloaded on 04/02/2022 at 08:49:48 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMB-193/2022] facts of the present case as the sample of alleged fertilizer was found spurious as per factual and FSL reports.
Therefore, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State as well as factual and FSL report of alleged fertilizer and gravity of offence; but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this court deems it not proper to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is dismissed.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J Ashish Kumar /52 (Downloaded on 04/02/2022 at 08:49:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)