Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Janaksingh Son Of Shri Ratanlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 December, 2020
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14321/2020
Panchulal S/o Ratanlal Tanwar, R/o Durjanpura PS Ghatoli Distt.
Jhalawar Raj. (At Present Confined In Sub Distt. Jail Aklera Distt.
Jhalawar Raj.)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 10/12/2020 The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 363/2020 registered at Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar for the offence under Section(s) 8/21 and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act of 1985').
As per the order sheet dated 23.11.2020, on information furnished by the learned Public Prosecutor that one more criminal case is pending against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1985, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought time to verify the fact and apprise the Court about its present status. On 09.12.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that name of father of the present petitioner is Ratanlal; whereas, in another FIR bearing no.0084/2020 registered at Police Station (Downloaded on 10/12/2020 at 10:00:48 PM) (2 of 4) [CRLMB-14321/2020] Sarthal, Baran, as referred by the learned Public Prosecutor on 23.11.2020, accused is Panchulal S/o Ramratan and both the persons are different. On this, learned Public Prosecutor, relying upon the admission from dated 05.07.2008 of the petitioner available in the case diary, apprised this Court that name of father of the petitioner is Ratanlal @ Ramratan. Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for and was granted a day's time to seek instructions. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Panchulal S/o Ratanlal/Ramratan mentioned in the earlier FIR as well as in the present FIR are one and the same person and wanted to address the Court on merit of the case.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of information furnished by co-accused which is not admissible in evidence. He submitted that co-accused persons, from whose possession the contraband was allegedly recovered, have been extended benefit of bail by this Court. With regard to pendency of another case under the provisions of the Act of 1985, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgments of co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Amarjeet Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan: SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11145/2020, Amir Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan: SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8444/2020, Amandeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan: SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8388/2020, Gurdas Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan: SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4868/2020, Deva Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan: SB Criminal (Downloaded on 10/12/2020 at 10:00:48 PM) (3 of 4) [CRLMB-14321/2020] Misc. Bail Application No. 5918/2020 and Rajendra Vs. State of Rajasthan: SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4319/2020, submitted that mere pendency is no bar for grant of bail. He, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be extended benefit of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. From the material on record, it is apparent that the petitioner has not only indulged in offences under the provisions of the Act of 1985 again; but, has also tried to play fraud with the Law Enforcement Agencies by claiming himself to be son of Ramratan or son of Ratanlal on different occasions. A perusal of the order dated 09.07.2020 passed by this Court in SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5865/2020: Panchulal S/o Ramratan Vs. State of Rajasthan, extending the petitioner benefit of bail in FIR no.0084/2020 registered at Police Station Sarthal, Baran, shows that therein the Court has made categorical observation "(H)owever, it is made clear that if the petitioner repeats the offence, State would be free to move application for cancellation of bail before the concerned Court".
There is allegation against the petitioner of repeating the offence under the provisions of the Act of 1985. With regard to contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been implicated in this case merely on the basis of information furnished by co-accused, suffice is to say that investigation is still pending. This Court is in respectful agreement with the observations made by this Court in the orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner; but, the same do not lay down (Downloaded on 10/12/2020 at 10:00:48 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLMB-14321/2020] any such absolute proposition of law that whenever there is criminal antecedents of an applicant seeking bail under the provisions of the Act of 1985, the Court is obliged to extend him benefit of bail in spite of his criminal record involving offence(s) of same nature. The Hon'ble Apex Court has, in cases of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.: Criminal Appeal No. 1272/2015, decided on 29th September, 2015 and Ram Pratap Yadav Vs. Mitra Sen Yadav and Ors.: (2003) 1 SCC 15, held that while entertaining the plea of bail by an accused, his criminal antecedents is a relevant consideration.
As observed earlier, the petitioner has not only indulged in offence again under the provisions of the Act of 1985, but also has tried to play fraud with the investigating agency concealing his identity. In these circumstances, in view of nature and gravity of allegation against the petitioner, he does not deserve indulgence of bail.
The bail application is dismissed accordingly. The State is directed to move an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2020 in SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5865/2020, as per direction contained therein within a period of four weeks from today.
A copy of this order may be made available in the office of Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General for necessary compliance.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J MADAN MEENA /84 (Downloaded on 10/12/2020 at 10:00:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)