Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
(Bhagwan Singh vs . State Of Raj.) on 7 August, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 815/2014.
(Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Raj.) Date of Order: 07/08/2014 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA, J.
Mr Ashok Prashant, son of petitioner Bhagwan Singh.
Mr. Arun Mathur, Assistant Director (Prosecution) City, for State.
Mr Hardayal Singh, Dy.S.P., ACB, Jaipur (Investigating Officer) present in person.
This Misc. Petition has been filed against the order dated 14.11.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Special Court, ACD Cases, Ajmer whereby application of the petitioner under Section 70 (2) and 71 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
2. On 21.6.2013 application has been moved on behalf of Anti Corruption Bureau under the provisions of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 praying that arrest warrants be issued against the petitioner, this application has been allowed, he moved an application under Section 70 (2) and 71 Cr.P.C which has been dismissed. Hence this petition.
3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that he has been implicated only because Hemraj Kanawat has visited his house on 23.4.2013. Hemraj Kanawat is also advocate, both are in the same profession, they were acquainted with each other and merely because of the visit of Hemraj Kanawat he has been implicated. During search, only 92,000/- has been recovered from his house which is in the joint possession of his son. Out of 92,000/- Rs. 36,500/- were recovered from the room of Ashok Kumar, son of petitioner whereas rest amount was his as he is a practicing lawyer. It cannot be denied that he could keep this much of amount for daily use. He is a law abiding person. It has also been submitted that 10 roll numbers which were alleged to be given by him were all remained unsuccessful which negatives the contention of conspiracy. The petitioner is used to raise voice against corruption in various departments, hence he has been implicated falsely. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner hence non bailable warrants be converted into bailable warrants. Written arguments have also been filed.
Per contra, on behalf of Anti Corruption Bureau, it has been stated that on 23.4.2013, the Anti Corruption Bureau has reached the residence of petitioner but he could make good of his escape and since then he is absconding. Telephone conversation between petitioner, Hemraj Kanawat and Rajesh Sharma in relation to L.D.C. Examinations clearly proves the role of the petitioner and charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner under Section 299 Cr.P.C. Proclamation has also been issued in spite of this, he has not appeared before the court below, hence his prayer could not be acceded.
Without commenting on merits of the case, the facts cannot be disputed that arrest warrants have been issued against the petitioner since 21.6.2013 he is asking for converting into bailable warrants but more than one year has elapsed he has not chosen to appear before the court below which clearly shows his intentions. The contention on behalf of the petitioner that he is not absconding and arrest warrants should not be issued against him, seems to be fanciful as since 21.6.2013, he is not attending the proceedings in spite of knowledge of the proceedings which clearly speaks that he is escaping form the proceedings and arrest warrants have rightly been issued against him and there is no reason to convert it into bailable warrants. The court below has rightly done so and there is no ground to interfere or set aside the order dated 14.11.2013 in the inherent powers of this Court.
The petition being deviod of merit is dismissed.
(NISHA GUPTA), J.
Gandhi 32 All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being e-mailed.
BM GANDHI Sr. Personal Assistant.