Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Durgesh Kumar Soni vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 4 February, 2014
S.B. Criminal Misc. IIIrd Bail Application No.1416/2014 (Durgesh Kumar Soni Versus State of Rajasthan) Date of Order :: 4th February, 2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Siyaram Agarwal) for the petitioner
with ) Mr. O.P. Shukla ) Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, PP for the State Mr. Abhishek Parashar, for the complainant
This IIIrd bail application has been filed under Section 439 CrPC against the order dated 21.1.2014 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan arising out of FIR No. 41/2013 registered at Police Station, Transport Nagar, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 420, 406 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
Mehtab Singh, complainant filed a complaint against the accused petitioner before Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The same was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Transport Nagar, Jaipur under Section 156(3) CrPC for registering the same. Thereafter, First Information Report No. 41/2013 was registered for the offence under Sections 420, 406 IPC, in which it was mentioned that the complainant was acquainted with the petitioner Durgesh Kumar Soni. He was stated to be engaged in jewellery business on commission basis. Giving assurance of high cost of ornaments, he received ornaments valued at Rs. 1.00 crores time to time from his shop and issued him receipt of it. Thereafter the petitioner has neither returned the cost of the ornaments received from his shop nor he returned back the ornaments. In the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner was arrested during the course of investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Siya Ram Agarwal with Mr. O.P. Shukla appearing on behalf of the petitioner have contended that the accused petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter. The investigation was completed; challan has been filed and trial is likely to be completed because prosecution witnesses have been examined by the trial court and only defence witnesses are yet to be examined. The petitioner is not the habitual offender. Learned counsel have further contended that they gave the cheque to the complainant just to assure that he is not committing the offence of cheating. They have further contended that the petitioner is in judicial lock up from the last 7 months and the alleged offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, hence he should be released on bail.
Learned PP appearing for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant have contended that the accused petitioner has committed the offence of cheating of more than 1.00 crore of rupees and that cheating has been proved by the statement of the prosecution witnesses. They have further contended that trial is likely to be completed and at this stage, the accused petitioner should not be released on bail.
In view of above, I do not think it proper to accept the IIIrd bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner and hence, the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
However, it is expected from the trial court that it will conclude the trial as early as possible and if possible, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(Mahesh Chandra Sharma)J. DK All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.
Dilip Khandelwal PA