Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahaveer Prasad Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 7 July, 2017
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 1224 / 2017
Mahaveer Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Ramgopal Sharma B/c
Brahmin, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Shiv Colony, Dr. Chhittora Ki
Gali, Hospital Marg, Baran.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 1502 / 2017
Ashok Kumar Meena S/o Shri Chandra Prakash Meena B/c Meena,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Ganwadi, Post Kishanpura Takia,
Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 1892 / 2017
Lalit Kumar Garg S/o Shri Babulal Garg B/c Mahajan, Aged About
45 Years, R/o Deendayal Park, Jaiprakash Colony, Baran.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 1967 / 2017
Lalaram Son of Shri Ramphool Jatav, by Caste Jatav, Aged About
62 Years, R/o Village Vajeerpur, District Sawai Madhopur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
(2 of 7)
[ CRLMB-1224/2017]
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 3659 / 2017
Dinesh Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Mohanlal Sharma, by Caste
Brahmin, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Shivaji Colony, Nareda Road,
Baran.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kapil Gupta in Cr.Misc.Bail Application Nos.
1224/2017 & 1892/2017
Mr.V.R.Bajwa in Cr.Misc.Bail Application
No.1502/2017
Mr.Gaurav Jain in Cr.Misc.Bail Application
No.1967/2017
Mr.Arvind Gupta in Cr.Misc.Bail Application
No.3659/2017.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.S.Shekhawat PP with
Mr.Ramesh Chandra Arya CI ACB (SU) Kota.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
07/07/2017
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a raid was
conducted by the Anti-Corruption Department on 13.2.2015 at the
Godown of petitioner-Lalit Kumar Garg in Criminal Misc.Bail
Application No.1892/2017 and on search being made, certain
gunny bags (wheat) meant for distribution to the rashan shop
dealers were found. FIR was lodged on 31.3.2016 against Ashok
Kumar Meena transporter of Rajasthan State Food and Civil
(3 of 7)
[ CRLMB-1224/2017]
Supplies Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as "RSFCSC"),
petitioner-Lala Ram Jatav Vigilance Inspector in RSFCSC,
petitioner-Mahaveer Prasad Sharma transporter, petitioner-Lalit
Kumar Garg Godown owner and petitioner-Dinesh Kumar Garg
treasurer of the transport company.
2. It is contended by counsel for petitioner-Ashok Kumar Meena
that petitioner has joined as Manager in RSFCSC on 2.7.2015.
Immediately after joining he found that some amount is
outstanding towards Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, transporter and he
issued notice to Mahaveer Prasad Sharma on 3.7.2015 and
thereafter he continuously remined Mahaveer Prasad Sharma to
clear the dues of RSFCSC.
3. It is also contended that on non-payment of the amount by
the transporter, FIR was filed by Ashok Kumar Meena on
14.3.2016 against the transporter in which the police after
investigation submitted negative final report on 20.10.2016
concluding that outstanding amount has been deposited by the
transporter.
4. It is contended that at the most petitioner-Ashok Kumar
Meena can be considered guilty for supervisory negligence. There
is no mens rea with regard to commission of an offence.
5. Counsel for petitioners-Mahaveer Prasad Sharma and Lalit
Kumar Garg has argued that the transporter has deposited the
outstanding amount towards RSFCSC, hence, no offence is made
out against him with regard to petitioner-Lalit Kumar Garg
(4 of 7)
[ CRLMB-1224/2017]
Godown owner, it is contended that the consignment recovered
cannot be considered to be meant for distribution through Fair
Price shop dealers the gunny bags are often auctioned by the FCI
and merely because gunny bags of FCI were recovered from his
Godown would not ipso facto implicate the Godown owner.
6. Counsel for petitioner-Lalaram Jatav has argued that
petitioner-Lalaram Jatav retired from service and was appointed
on contract basis merely because certain gate-passes bearing his
signatures have been recovered by the Anti-Corruption
Department which would not have any bearing on the case as no
loss has been caused to RSFCSC and whatever consignment was
to be delivered to Rashan shop dealers have been delivered.
7. Counsel for petitioner Dinesh Kumar Sharma has contended
that he is merely a treasurer in the transport company. There is
no allegation against him and he has not named in the FIR and
since the police has come to the conclusion that there is no
outstanding against the transporter, therefore, he is entitled for
anticipatory bail.
8. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners have joined the investigation and no recovery is to be
effected from them and no useful purpose would be served in
arresting the petitioners.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the
anticipatory bail applications. His contention is that the wheat is
meant to be supplied to rashan shop dealers was lifted by the
(5 of 7)
[ CRLMB-1224/2017]
accused and the involvement of the transporter, Godown owner
and Lalaram Jatav was Vigilance Inspector.
10. It is also contended that during investigation it is revealed by
the Fair Price shop dealers that wheat was not allotted to them
and signatures were obtained from them with regard to
distribution but consignment was not sent and there is no entry in
the stock register as the consignment was not received by the
dealers. My attention has been drawn to statements of Parmanand
Gautam, Rajendra, Ramswaroop and Sulochna.
11. It is also contended that Ashok Kumar Meena being Manager
was required to see that the consignment was sent to the
respective dealers and a receipt thereof was obtained from them.
His inaction points out towards his connivance with the other co-
accused. It is contended that it was his duty to ensure that the
consignment reached to the rashan shop dealers.
12. With regard to Lalaram Jatav, it is contended that challan bill
books and gate-passes bearing his signatures have been seized by
the Anti-Corruption Department. He has failed to verify the fact of
the consignment reaching the rashan shop dealers.
13. As regards the Godown owner-Lalit Kumar Garg, it is
contended that the gunny bags were bearing mark of Government
of Haryana of the year 2015-16 and these bags were meant for
supply to the Fair Price shop dealers. The contention that Lalaram
Jatav has purchased the same from Amar Enterprises is also
denied by the Public Prosecutor.
(6 of 7) [ CRLMB-1224/2017]
14. It is contended that owner of Amar Enterprises has specifically stated that he has not supplied any gunny bag bearing the mark of Government of Haryana.
15. As regards the transporter, it is contended that the transporter has lifted the wheat meant for Ration (Fair Price Shops) shops and as such he is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
16. I have considered the contentions of the counsel for the parties.
17. In the search made on 31.12.2015 wheat meant to be supplied to the Fair Price shop dealers was recovered from Lalit Kumar Garg Godown owner and his defence that he has purchased from Amar Enterprises do not find support from the investigation done so far. The involvement of Lalit Kumar Garg, Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Lalaram Jatav is thus made out from the perusal of investigation done so far. Petitioner-Ashok Kumar Meena being the Manager of RSFCSC was duty bound to see that the goods reached the dealers and merely because the job was assigned to Lalaram Jatav, he cannot escape from the liability.
18. In view of the above, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioneras-Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Ashok Kumar Meena, Lalit Kumar Garg and Lala Ram. Accordingly, their bail applications are dismissed.
19. However, petitioner-Dinesh Kumar Sharma being the treasurer of transport company, his involvement has not prima facie been made from the perusal of the case diary, therefore, I (7 of 7) [ CRLMB-1224/2017] deem it proper to grant him anticipatory bail.
20. The Anticipatory Bail Application of petitioner-Dinesh Kumar Sharma in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.3659/2017 is allowed. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau, Head Quarter, Jaipur (Chowki Baran) in F.I.R. No.59/2016, is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner-"Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Mohanlal Sharma aged about 46 years, by caste Brahmin, R/O Shivaji Colony, Nareda Road, Baran", he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions:-
(I). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer, and
(iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
21. Copy of this order be placed in the other connected files.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.
teekam S.No.2 to 6