Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sharad Chandel vs State on 25 October, 2017
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 7499 / 2017
Sharad Chandel S/o Narendra Chandel, by caste Prajapat, R/o
Kasar, Police Station Mandana, District Kota, at present R/o 7-J-6,
Chandra Shekhar Azad Nagar, Bhilwara
(At present lodged in District Jail, Bhilwara)
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Charan.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor.
Mr. Shokat Hussain, ASI, Police Station
Pratap Nagar, District Bhilwara, present.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order 25/10/2017 Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of FIR No.834/16, registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, District Bhilwara for offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Police after investigation submitted chargesheet in the matter.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Learned counsel would contend that RPS Code is provided by Bank itself at the time of refilling cash with ATM machine, and therefore, in all probability at that juncture bank officials joined hands with the real culprits but upon exposure of scam, for shielding their omissions have falsely (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7499/2017] foisted charges against the petitioner. Learned counsel has contended that nothing is recovered from the petitioner and offences are triable by Magistrate.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed bail application of the petitioner. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that in the present era cases of misuse of RPS Codes, for operating/loading ATM machines, are in ascending order and looking to siphoning of huge amount of over 17 lakhs in the matter, petitioner's bail plea is liable to be thwarted.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record including the C.O. Diary.
While it is true that the offences slapped against petitioner are triable by Magistrate but then looking to huge amount of Rs.17,60,300 involved in the matter and steep rise in offences of such nature, it would not be appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
Upon perusal of the materials available on record and C.O. Diary, prima facie, the Court has reasons to believe that investigation conducted in the matter is per se not full-proof and in consonance and conformity with relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. but then seriousness of insinuations against the petitioner cannot (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7499/2017] be underplayed at this stage. Indisputably, petitioner was an employee of the Bank, who had some nexus with the commission of offence, therefore, I feel dissuaded to grant indulgence to him.
Resultantly, the bail application fails and same is hereby dismissed.
(P.K. LOHRA)J.