Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Saurabh S/O Shri Pramod vs The State Of Rajasthan on 27 August, 2021
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
8791/2021
Saurabh S/o Shri Pramod, Aged About 22 Years, R/o H.no. 7-A-
12, Mahaveer Nagar Third, Kota, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 27/08/2021
1. Petitioner has filed this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No.463/2019 was registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar Kota for offence under Sections 420, 408 of I.P.C.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a young boy, aged twenty one years. There was some dispute pertaining to his salary. A false case has been registered against him. It is also contended that petitioner was shown as absconder. No record from the vendor was produced and statement of witnesses with regard to the embezzlement was not recorded. Charge-sheet was filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that as per the direction of the Court, petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer but no investigation was (Downloaded on 01/09/2021 at 09:57:38 PM) (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8791/2021] done by the Investigating Officer.
4. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that even if charge-sheet was filed, anticipatory bail application can be granted. In this regard reliance has been placed on "Ravindra Saxena vs State of Rajasthan" 2010 AIR (SC) 1225 and "Bharat Choudhary and Another Vs. State of Bihar & Another" 2003 AIR (SC) 4662.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the anticipatory bail application. It is contended that in the F.I.R. there was specific allegation that petitioner has embezzled goods worth of Rs.8,41,470/- and has taken Rs.1,80,000/- from the complainant- company which was to be paid to the vendors. It is also contended that the police after due investigation has filed charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. holding therein that offence under Section 420 & 408 IPC are made out against the petitioner.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. In "Ravindra Saxena vs State of Rajasthan" (supra) the Apex Court has held that when the application is made to the High Court or Court of Sessions it must apply its own mind on the question and decide when the case is made out for granting such relief. Anticipatory bail should not be denied merely because the allegation pertains to cheating or forgery of a valuable security. Denial of grant of anticipatory bail only on the ground that the challan has been presented would not satisfy the requirements of Sections 437 and 438 Cr.P.C.
8. In "Bharat Choudhary and Another Vs. State of Bihar & (Downloaded on 01/09/2021 at 09:57:38 PM) (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8791/2021] Another" (supra), the Apex Court has held that the gravity of the offence is an important factor to be taken into consideration while granting such anticipatory bail. The fact of taking cognizance or filing of charge sheet cannot by themselves be construed as a prohibition against the grant of anticipatory bail. Court has the power to grant anticipatory bail in non-bailable offences under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. even when cognizance is taken or charge sheet is filed provided the facts of the case require the Court to do so.
9. As far as the question of grant of anticipatory bail is concerned, the same is settled by the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner. However, as to whether petitioner is entitled to the same, is to be decided by the Court looking to the gravity of the offence.
10. In the present case in hand, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has embezzled the amount of Rs.8,41,470/- and has further not made payment to the vendor of Rs.1,80,000/-. The amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was taken by the petitioner from the complainant-company and was not paid to the vendor. There being specific allegation in the F.I.R. pertaining to embezzlement and charge-sheet having been filed, I am not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail application.
11. Anticipatory Bail Application is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. However, looking to the fact that the matter is pending before the Court below, petitioner is free to surrender before the concerned Court and move fresh bail application in accordance with law.
(Downloaded on 01/09/2021 at 09:57:38 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-8791/2021]
13. In case, the petitioner surrenders, bail application should be decided as far as possible on the same day.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J ARTI SHARMA /8 (Downloaded on 01/09/2021 at 09:57:38 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)