Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 July, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9042/2021
Pawan Kumar S/o Subhash, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Chak 1
Nwm Rohi Nirwal, P.s. Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.
(Presently In Judicial Custody At District Jail Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6845/2021
Sanjay Singh S/o Sayar Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Jaalpali,
Tehsil And P.s. Srimadhopur. (Presently Lodged At District Jail
Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7226/2021
Madanlal S/o Shri Ramkishan, Aged About 26 Years, Thedi
Nathan, P.s. Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In District Jail
Hanumangarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7227/2021
Madan Lal S/o Shri Ramkishan, Aged About 26 Years, Thedi
Nathan, P.s. Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In District Jail
Hanumangarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 27/07/2021 at 08:40:48 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-9042/2021]
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7570/2021
Dipti @ Anmol S/o Het Ram, Aged About 21 Years, Beharwala
Khurd, Police Station Elnabad, Tehsli Elnabad, District Sirsa
(Haryana). (At Present Lodged In District Jail Hanumangarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Manjeet Godara
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta
Mr. IR Choudhary
Mr. Jeetender Singh Khichi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order 26/07/2021 These four bail applications are being decided by this common order as the common FIR has been registered against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Madan Lal submits that he has filed an on-line bail application and subsequently a hard copy of the same bail application was also registered and, therefore, two bail applications were registered instead of one, learned counsel for the petitioner Madan Lal, therefore, wants to withdraw the bail application No. 7227/2021 (Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan).
The same bail application bearing No. 7227/2021 is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Pawan Kumar submits that one of the co-accused Sandeep Soni has been (Downloaded on 27/07/2021 at 08:40:48 PM) (3 of 4) [CRLMB-9042/2021] enlarged on bail by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that recovery of air gun has been made from the petitioner, which cannot be said to have been used in the Bank robbery and no identification parade was conducted and the petitioner has been falsely made accused in this case and accordingly, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sanjay Singh submits that the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner under Section 395 IPC while the Bank robbery was committed by only two persons who had entered into the Bank where the petitioner was working as a Manager and the petitioner ultimately put on the alarm and called the Police. However, the petitioner has been made accused by making false recovery from him and from the recovery memo, it is clear that some materiel like gold was recovered and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner in any manner was involved in the alleged Bank robbery.
Learned counsel Mr. IR Choudhary, appearing for the petitioner Madan Lal (7226/2021) submits that the petitioner's presence is not shown at the incident and in the charge-sheet, his role has been shown who has planned robbery and a false recovery has been shown as against the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Dipti @ Anmol submits that the petitioner was not involved in the said robbery in any manner and he has been falsely made an accused in the present case and recovery is also wrongly made from the accused.
Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that from the charge-sheet, it is clear that recovery of gold and cash has been made from all the accused petitioners and the seal of Bank on the gold was also present and, therefore, it cannot be said that the (Downloaded on 27/07/2021 at 08:40:48 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLMB-9042/2021] recovered articles were not those which were stolen from the Bank.
I have considered the submissions regarding the charge- sheet having been filed wrongly under Section 395 IPC and it should have been filed under Section 392 IPC, need not be adjudicated at this stage of bail. Such an argument, if any, is always open for the learned counsel at the stage of framing of the charges.
As regards the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime is concerned, prima facie, after having perused the statement and evidence which have come in the charge-sheet, this Court is satisfied that at this stage, the petitioners do not deserve to be granted benefit of bail. The case of Sandeep Soni is found to be on different footings as the allegation against him is of purchasing of stolen articles and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim parity with that of Sandeep Soni.
Taking into consideration the nature of the crime having committed like Bank robbery, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
The bail applications are accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J 15-19 ns.
(Downloaded on 27/07/2021 at 08:40:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)