Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Harish Kumar Sharma vs State Of Raj Asthan Through Pp on 18 May, 2011
S.B.Cr. Misc. Second Bail Application No. 4168/2011
Harish Kumar Sharma vs. State of Raj.
----
18.5.2011
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Shrimal,Public Prosecutor
---
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
2. This second bail application has been filed by the petitioner Vijay Kumar under section 439 Cr.P.C.
3. 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 objection 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 petitioner. Thereafter the petitioners 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 petitioner earlier filed bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C, which was registered as S.B.Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 209/2011. By the order dated 12.1.2011, this court rejected the bail application of the petitioner 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 alocohol, 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 petitioner is free to move bail application before the trial court after filing of the challan.
4. Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has contended that at the time of rejecting the first bail application, the petitioner was given liberty to more bail application before the trial court after filing of the challan. After filing of the challan, the petitioner moved bail application before the trial court but the same was rejected vide order dated 25.4.2011. Now this second bail application has been filed. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner has contended that the accused petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.12.2010. He has further contended that the investigation has been completed and the challan has been filed. After receiving due certificate from the Deputy Commissioner, Puducheri through broker the Company exported 40000 litres extra neutal alcohold with due procees of law and the company has also lodged a complaint before the concerned Magistrate which has been forwarded to the concerned police station under section 156 (3) Crt.P.C. against the broker and the transporter. He has further contended that the company has already deposited all the dues and penalties to the concerned department.
5. On the other hand Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor has contended that the petitioner, who is working in the company but the other officials of the company have not been arrested and the investigation is still pending against the employees of the company and they are absconding. The Public Prosecutor has contended that in such a henious offence where the petitioner caused revenue loss to the excise department, is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. In view of the above without commenting on the merits of the case the accused petitioner prepared and produced forged no objection certificate of the Deputy Commissioner Puducheri before the Excise Officials and exported 40,000 litres extra neutral alcohol and was involved in the henious offence causing revenue loss to the Excise Department, is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.
7. For these reasons, this second bail application is rejected. However, I direct the trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible and the petitioner is free to move bail application before the trial court after recording of the statements of the material witnesses.
(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