Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Gordhan Lal Pandiya vs State Of Rajasthan Through P P on 29 August, 2017
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 8500 / 2017
Gordhan Lal Pandiya S/o Shri Kesu Ram Pandiya, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Mansarover Colony, Ramnagar, Ajmer (raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kamal Kant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Prakash Thakuriya,PP _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 29/08/2017
1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No.268/2016 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer for offence under Sections 420/407 I.P.C.
3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was only assigned the work of weighing of the trucks at two weighment machines. It is contended that the petitioner has no connection with the crime. He was not named in the FIR.
4. It is also contended that the petitioner has served for 20 years. There is no case against the petitioner. It is contended that if the bail application is rejected, liberty be given to the petitioner to surrender before the concerned Court.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. His contention is that the petitioner is involved in the crime. The (2 of 2) [CRLMB-8500/2017] total quantity of scrap was more than 590 tones but when the material was dispatched after the weighment, the same was reduced to 225 tones. As per the advertisement the article was to fetch of Rs.119 lacs, but only Rs. 49.57 lacs was received. It is also contended that co-accused-Dinesh Jain has been arrested and his bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is pending before the High Court. Case of petitioner is akin to that of Dinesh Jain.
6. Considering the contentions of the counsel for the State, I am not inclined to allow the anticipatory bail application.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.
teekam3