Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Babu Singh And Anr vs State Of Raj Asthan Through Pp on 9 November, 2011
S.B.Cr. Misc. Second Bail Application No. 10375/2011 Ram Babu Singh and anr. vs. State of Raj. ---- November 9 , 2011 REPORTABLE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia, for the petitioners Ram Babu Singh and Bijendra Kumar. Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor
---
This second bail application has been filed by the petitioners Ram Babu Singh and Bijendra Kumar under section 439 Cr.P.C. in criminal case No. 80 /11 in FIR No. 280/2010 registered at Police Station Ajitgarh, District Sikar for offence under secions 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120 B IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 280/2010 was registered at Police Station Ajitgarh 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 FIR No.280/2010 was registered at Police Ajeetgarh for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 406 IPC. After investigation the police has arrested the accused petitioners.
3. Thereafter the accused persons have 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 petitioners Ram Babu Singh and Bijendra Kumar earlier filed bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C, which were registered as S.B.Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 210/2011 and S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.211/2011. By the order dated 12.1.2011, this court rejected the bail application No. 210/2011 observing as under :
Without commenting on the merits of the case and the fact that the accused petitioner 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 petitioner on bail. However the petitioners is free to move bail application before the trial court after filing of the challan.
4. Similar bail rejection order was also passed in the Bail Application No. 211 of 2011 filed by petitioner Bijendra Kumar and Vijay Kumar Sharma on 12.1.2011.
5. At the time of rejecting the first bail application, liberty was given to the petitioners to move bail application before the trial court after filing of the challan.
6. The petitioners Ram Babu Singh and Bijendra Kumar along with Harish Kumar Sharma and Vijay Kumar Sharma, filed bail applications before the trial court and the trial court vide order dated 16.9.2011 rejected the bail applications by separate orders under section 437 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the petitioner Ram Babu Singh and Bijendra Kumar along with Harish Kumar Sharma, Vijay Kumar Sharma, 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 applications of the accused persons vide order dated 22.9.2011 observing as under :
8.??????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? 16.9.11 ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? 2.7.2011?? ???? ????? ?? ??? 2 ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??: ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???????????? ? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?
7. Now the petitioners have filed the above second bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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. Placing reliance on section 437 Cr.P.C. the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the accused petitioners were arrested on 22.12.2010 and has since been behind bars and the first date fixed by the trial court for taking evidence was 14.7.2011 and since then the mandatory time for completion of trial has lapsed and thus the accused petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. It has also been submitted that two other accused persons being 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 and case of the accused petitioner is much better in comparison to them. It was prayed that the accused petitioners are now entitled to be released on bail.
9. On the other hand Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, 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, the Public Prosecutor has stated that the Addl. Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the arguments raised by the petitioners has rightly rejected the bail application. The petitioners 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 petitioners was rightly rejected and the petitioners are not entitled for any bail at this stage.
10. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners and in my opinion also at this stage the petitioners are 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 petitioners are 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 petitioners in connivance with other accused persons, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. At this stage the trial court can be directed to complete the trial expeditiously.
11. For these reasons, this second baial application filed by the petitioners is 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