Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Prahlad Sharma vs State Of Raj Asthan Through Pp on 13 April, 2011
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.2574/2011. Heera Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2) S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.2717/2011. Fakhruddin Vs. State of Rajasthan 3) S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.3021/2011. Prahlad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : April 13, 2011. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.R. Surana Shri P.C. Bhandari and Shri Pankaj Gupta for the petitioners. Shri Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for State.
****** These three bail applications have been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners, who all of whom are accused of committing offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and 420 of IPC.
Contention of Shri S.R. Surana, learned counsel for petitioner- Fakhruddin is that this petitioner is simply a driver of a vehicle. Owner of the vehicle is Kamruddin. Vehicle in fact has been released to him on superdginama. This petitioner was not found in preparing the adulterated ghee and that he was there with the vehicle for carrying the tins of the ghee to be delivered to destination. Petitioner was arrested on 13/3/2011 and since then he is in jail. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged offence at the most can be said to be covered under Sections 272 and 273 IPC, which both are bailable and the maximum sentence of each of the offence is six months.
Contention of Shri P.C. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for petitioner-Heera Lal is that there is no evidence of petitioner's involvement in preparing the adulterated ghee and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He runs a vegetable shop at Kalwar road and has nothing to do with the crime. Petitioner was arrested on 13/3/2011 and since then he is in jail.
Contention of Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner-Prahlad Sharma is that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present matter and he is not owner of the shop from where alleged recovery has been made. Shop is in the name of his brother Kailash Chand Sharma, who has bakery license to run the shop. It is argued that there is no control order issued by the Government under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and therefore provision of offence u/S.3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is not attracted. It is further argued that there is no allegation of cheating by any person and that the statements of some of the persons subsequently recorded by the police were not reliable for the purpose of offence under Section 420 IPC because those persons have not come forward to lodge the FIR. There is no other criminal case except this. Petitioner was arrested on 13/3/2011 and since then he is in jail.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued when there is a special law like Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, general law cannot be invoked for the prosecution of the petitioners.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications and has submitted that so far as accused-petitioner Fakhruddin is concerned, the evidence against him is that he was driver of the vehicle, which was used for supply of the adulterated ghee and so far as accused-petitioner Heera Lal is concerned, the main allegation of preparing the adulterated ghee is against the other accused. In this respect, learned Public Prosecutor referred to the statements of three witnesses, who have stated that it was accused-petitioner Prahlad Sharma, who sold to them such adulterated ghee claiming this is to be a pure ghee whereas, it was adulterated ghee. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that as to which of the offence is to be made out against which of the accused should not be considered at this stage when the matter is still at the stage of investigation and police has yet to file challan. He therefore prayed that bail applications of the petitioners be rejected.
Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and considering the arguments aforenoted, I am inclined to enlarge petitioners Fakhruddin and Heera Lal on bail whereas, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioner Prahlad Sharma on bail.
In the result, the bail application of petitioner Prahlad Sharma u/S.439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed and bail applications of Petitioners - Fakhruddin and Heera Lal are allowed and it is directed that petitioners Fakhruddin S/o Hussain Khan and Heera Lal S/o Shri Sita Ram shall be released on bail in FIR No.122/2011 registered at P.S. Bagru, District Jaipur for offence u/S.420 IPC and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act on their furnishing a personal bond each in the sum of Rs.30,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for their appearance before that court on all dates of hearing until conclusion of the trial.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
anil