Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahendra Mangal S/O Shri Ramesh Chand vs Union Of India on 11 February, 2022
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 16497/2021
Mahendra Mangal S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o B-199 Jamnapuri Murlipura Jaipur Raj. At Present The
Accused In J.c. At Central Jail Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Superintendent CGST, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jayvardhan Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Pareek, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing Counsel HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 11/02/2022 The second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with File No.IV(06)115/AE/JPR/2020 filed by the Office of Commissioner, CGST Jaipur (PS) for the offence(s) under Section 132 CGST Act, 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since 22.02.2021. First bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 07.09.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that after that, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner is behind the bars about one year and trial is yet to commence. Learned counsel for the petitioner also (Downloaded on 11/02/2022 at 09:33:46 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16497/2021] submits that offence against the petitioner is compoundable and maximum punishment of 5 years. Conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Dananjay Singh S/o Shri Hari Sharan Singh Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18825/2021; (2) Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI in Criminal Appeals No.2178/2011 with Nos.2179-82 of 2011 decided on 23.11.2011; (3) Anup Ashopa Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4028/2020; (4) Sanjeev Jain Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3608/2021; (5) Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. In Criminal Appeal No.1277/2014 decided on 02.07.2014; (6) Hemant Kumar Singhal Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8676/2020; (7) Pradeep Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12093/2020; (8) Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India in S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15605/2020; (9) Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2 nd Bail Application No.3031/2021; (10) Ganesh Raj Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. In Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No.783/2005 decided on 01.04.2005 and (11) Ronak Kumar Jain Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16083/2021.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the first bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits. So, no new circumstances arises for (Downloaded on 11/02/2022 at 09:33:46 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16497/2021] entertaining the second bail application. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that petitioner had filed the documents of illness of his father but they are of January, 2021 and first bail application was decided on 07.09.2021. So, these are not relevant documents. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the second bail application filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Ashok Kumar Sihotiya Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No.15140/2021; (2) Mahendra Saini Vs. State of Raj. in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.14670/2021; (3) Sumit Dutta Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. 3 rd Bail Application No.15193/2021; (4) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kajad in Appeal (Crl.) No.907/2001 decided on 06.09.2001; (5) Smt. Amal Mubarak Salim Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1870/2015 and (6) Syed Mohammad Zama Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11193/2014.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.
First bail application filed by the petitioner was decided on merits, so, no new ground is made out for entertaining the second bail application as there is no change in circumstance necessitating entertaining the second bail application.
Dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /18 (Downloaded on 11/02/2022 at 09:33:46 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)