Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Harish Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 9 November, 2011
(1) S.B.Cr. Misc. Third Bail Application No. 9930/2011 Harish Kumar Sharma vs. State of Raj. (2) S.B.Cr. Misc. Third Bail Application No. 9933/2011 Harish Kumar Sharma vs. State of Raj. ---- November 9 ,2011 REPORTABLE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Brahmanand Sandu, for the petitioner Harish Kumar in both the bail applications. Mr. Peeyush Kumar,Public Prosecutor
---
S.B.Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 9933 of 2011 and S.B.Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 9930 of 2011, have been filed by the petitioner Harish Kumar under section 439 Cr.P.C. in criminal cases Nos. 101/11(224/11) and 100/11(225/11) pending before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Shrimadhopur
2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR Nos. 18/2010 and 17/2010 were registered at Excise Circle, Neem Ka Thana for offence under sections 18/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act in which it was stated that M/s. Agribiotech Industries Pvt. Ltd. moved a written application in the office of Excise Inspector, Neem Ka Thana stating that M/s. Premier Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Puducheri has placed an order for supply of 40000 ltrs. extra neutral alcohol and in support thereof it had produced a No bojection Certificate of Deputy Commissioner (Excise ) Puducheri dated 3.11.2010. According to this No objection Certificate 40,000 Ltrs. Extra neutral alcohol was permitted to be exported. On the basis of aforersaid imported permit the District Excise officer Sikar has issued import permits SKR 016490 dated 22.11.2010 and SKR 016491 dated 22.11.2010. Thereafter on the basis of the aforesaid import permit transportation permit No. SKR 012791 dated 22.11.22010 and SKR 012792 dated 22.11.2010 were issued. On the basis of these export and transport permits in two tankers 20,000 ltrs. each extra neutral alcohol (total 40,000 ltrs.) were loaded for onwards delivery to M/s. Premier Distillaries Pvt. Ltd. RS No. 62/08 MaduKarai Road Manglam, Village Villianur Commune Puducherry. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner Puducherry has informed to the Excise authorities that the alleged aforesaid No Objection Certificate was not issued by his office and the same is forged. In this manner the accused petitioner deceived to the department and obtained the export permits and transportation permits. On the basis of the aforesaid report an FIR No. 18/2010 was registered at Excise Circle, Neem Ka Thana for offence under sections 18/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. After investigation the excise officials have arrested the accused persons. Thereafter the petitioner has moved bail application before the trial court under section 437 Cr.P.C. which was dismissed and thereafter before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Sikar Headquarter at Srimadhopur which was also dismissed vide order dated 5.1.2011. The petitioner along with co-accused Ram Babu Singh, and Bijendra Kumar, earlier filed bail applications before this court under Section 439 Cr.P.C, which was registered as S.B.Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 235/2011 and 251/2011. By the order dated 12.1.2011, this court rejected the bail application No. 235/2011 and 251/2011 observing as under :
Without commenting on the merits of the case and the fact that the accused petitioners produced forged No objection certificate of Deputy Commissioner Puducherry before the Excise officers and deceiving them obtained export and transportation permits and exported 40,000 ltrs. Of Extra neutral alcohol, which is heinous offence and the fact that the investigation is going on, I do not think it proper to release the accused petitioners on bail. However the petitioners are free to move bail application before the trial court after filing of the challan.
3. At the time of rejecting the first bail application, liberty was given to move bail application before the trial court after filing of the challan. After filing of the challan, the petitioner and one Vijay Kumar Sharma moved bail application before the trial court but the same was rejected vide order dated 2.5.2011. After rejection of the bail by the trial court the petitioner and Vijay Kumar Sharma filed second bail application No. 4274/2011 before this court and by the order dated 18.5.2011 this court rejected the bail application observing as under :
For these reasons, this second bail application is rejected. However, I direct the trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible and the petitioners are free to move bail application before the trial court after recording of the statements of the material witnesses.
4. The petitioner Harish Kumar along with Vijay Kumar Sharma, Vijendra Kumar Sharma and Rambabu Singh, filed bail application before the trial court and the trial court vide order dated 7.9.2011 rejected the bail applications by separate orders under section 437 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the petitioner Harish Kumar along with Vijay Kumar Sharma, Vijendra Kumar Sharma and Rambabu Singh, filed bail applications under section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.2) Sikar Headquarter at Shrimadhopur. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Sikar Headquarter Shrimadhopur rejected the bail application of the accused persons vide order dated 13.9.2011 observing as under :
1.???? ??0?????? 1 ???? ????? ?? ???? 32?????? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??0 ?????? 2 ???? ??? ?? ???? 8 ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ???
2. ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???
3.????????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???
4.????????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ???????? ???
5.?? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? 2 ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??
6.????? ????? ( ??????? ????? ) ???? ????? ??? ???? 1977 ?? ???????? ????????? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ?????? ????? ?? ????????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ( ??????? ????? ) ??? ?? ?? ????? ( ??????? ????? )???? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ?? ? ????????? ( ??????? ????? ) ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? 437( 6 ) ?? ??? ???????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???????? ( ??????? ????? ) ???? ????? ??? ???????? 12-13 ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ??? ???????? ( ??????? ????? ) ???? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ( ??????? ????? ) ????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ( ??????? ????? ) ???? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???
7. ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?????????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?"
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present cases and the excise department has just to absolve itself of the lapses committed by them have baselessly implicated the accused petitioner and the petitioner has nothing to do with the offences alleged in the FIR as the same are baseless and concocted. The accused petitioner cannot do any thing without the permission of Asstt. Excise Officer posted at the distillery who is the sole incharge of the ingress and agrees of any material in the distillery without his permission and or order, not even a single person or a thing can be imported or exported. The accused petitioner was arrested on 21.12.2010 and has since been behind the bars and the first date fixed by the trial court for taking evidence was 29.6.2011 and since then the mandatory time for completion of the trial has lapsed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that the daughter of the petitioner suffers from cerebral palsy and is disabled person having aggregate disability of more than 60%. The wife of the petitioner is also seriously ill and referred to SMS Hospital for further treatment. He is only the person in the family who can take care of his daughter and wife. The learend counsel prayed for granting bail to the accused petitioner at this stage because the two other accused persons Vishnu Rathore and Pawan @ Sanjay Agarwal who are the main accused in the matter have already been released on bail by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court as the case of the accused petitioner is on much better position in comprarison to them.
6. On the other hand Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor has contended that the trial court has now recorded the statements of three witnesses and only four and five more witnesses are to be produced by the prosecution and at this stage this court may direct for early completion of trial. Drawing attention of this court towards the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and has stated that the Addl. Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the arguments raised by the petitioner and the rulings cited by the accused petitioner rightly rejected the bail application. The petitioner and the co -accused persons deposited more than Rs. 1 crore and 14 lacs towards taxes and there is every likely hood of tampering with the witnesses of the prosecution. The bail application of the petitioner was rightly rejected and the petitioner is not entitled for any bail at this stage.
7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the public prosecutor and has also gone through the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of the accused petitioner in both the cases and in my opinion also at this stage the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail particularly when the prosecution has already produced three witnesses, whose statements have been recorded by the trial court and only four or five witnesses are to be produced by the prosecution. I am also in agreement with the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge observing that if the accused petitioner is released at this stage there is every likelihood of tampering with the witnesses of the prosecution. In such a heinous offence wherein huge quantity of extra neutal alcohol was exported by the petitioner in connivance with other accused persons, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. At this stage the trial court can be directed to complete the trial expeditiously.
8. For these reasons, S.B.Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 9933 of 2011 and S.B.Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 9930 of 2011 filed by the petitioner are rejected. However, I direct the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of three months, if possible.
(Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.
Pareek/ All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed (O P Pareek) PS-cum JW