2014 Supreme(Raj) 1359
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
Paras Jain - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 12879 of 2013.
Decided On : 25-04-2014
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:S.S. Hora, Advocate.
For the State:Anurag Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
It is premature to examine and decide the issues raised by the accused at the stage of bail application when the charges have not yet been framed.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTIONS 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (1)(A), (D), 13(2) & 14 - BAIL - GRANT OF - ACCUSED CHARGED WITH MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLYING 'NAKLI DESHI GHEE' - TELEPHONIC CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN ACCUSED AND CO-ACCUSED INDICATING INVOLVEMENT IN CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - SAMPLES OF GHEE RECOVERED FROM ACCUSED'S PREMISES FOUND TO BE SUBSTANDARD - ACCUSED'S CONTENTION THAT HE WAS A GENUINE DEALER OF NOVA GHEE AND THAT THE GHEE SUPPLIED BY HIM WAS NOT INJURIOUS TO HEALTH - COURT HELD THAT IT WAS PREMATURE TO EXAMINE AND DECIDE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ACCUSED AT THE STAGE OF BAIL APPLICATION - BAIL APPLICATION DISMISSED - COURT DIRECTED THE TRIAL COURT TO EXAMINE AND CONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ACCUSED WHILE FRAMING CHARGES - ACCUSED ENTITLED TO APPLY FOR BAIL BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AFTER FRAMING OF CHARGES.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, Paras Jain, was arrested during the investigation of an FIR registered for offences under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Indian Penal Code, the Copyright Act, 1957, the Trade Mark Act, 1999, and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The accused was alleged to be involved in a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Dinesh Singhal for manufacturing and supplying 'Nakli Deshi Ghee' in and around Jaipur and Jhunjhunu districts. The prosecution relied on telephonic conversations between the accused and Dinesh Singhal, as well as samples of ghee recovered from the accused's premises, which were found to be substandard.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it was premature to examine and decide the issues raised by the accused at the stage of bail application. The court noted that the charges had not yet been framed and that the accused would be entitled to raise his arguments at that stage. The court also directed the trial court to examine and consider the arguments raised by the accused while framing charges.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused was involved in a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Dinesh Singhal for manufacturing and supplying 'Nakli Deshi Ghee'. 2. Whether the samples of ghee recovered from the accused's premises were substandard. 3. Whether the accused was a genuine dealer of Nova Ghee and whether the ghee supplied by him was injurious to health.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it was premature to examine and decide the issues raised by the accused at the stage of bail application. The court noted that the charges had not yet been framed and that the accused would be entitled to raise his arguments at that stage. The court also directed the trial court to examine and consider the arguments raised by the accused while framing charges.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the accused's bail application, but directed the trial court to examine and consider the arguments raised by the accused while framing charges. The accused was entitled to apply for bail before the trial court after framing of charges.
JUDGMENT
1. - This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by accused Paras Jain, who was arrested on 08.12.2013 during investigation in F.I.R. No.526/2013, registered on 07.12.2013 by the Anti Corruption Bureau for offence under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (1)(a), (d), 13(2) & 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 119, 120, 116, 201, 213, 214, 217, 218, 272, 273, 308, 328, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487, 488, 120-B IPC, Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957, Section 102 read with Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade mark Act, 1999, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He applied for regular bail, which was dismissed by the order dated 16.12.2013 of the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, No.1, Jaipur.
2. Shri S.S. Hora, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that entire case against the petitioner is based on his telephonic conversation with one Dinesh Singhal and that Dinesh Singhal used to supply 'Nakli Deshi Ghee' for onward sale in nearby areas of Jaipur and Jhunjhunu Districts. There is no material on record to show involvement of the petitioner in any of the offence mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner was not involved in manufacturing of such 'Nakli Deshi Ghee'. There is nothing unusual in the packets of Nova Ghee being seized from the petitioner's business premise run in the name and style of M/s Raj Agencies, as the petitioner was a dealer of Nova Ghee for last eight years. The petitioner has produced bills of M/s. Sterling Agro Industries Limited in the name of M/s. Raj Agencies showing continuous purchases for the last five years. The invoices of the said manufacturers of the current financial year i.e. 01.04.2013 till 05.12.2013 have also been produced on record. The Ghee recovered from the premise of the petitioner is absolutely genuine product of Nova. The petitioner has been issued a license by the Department of Medical & Health Services, to deal in this commodity. Copy of the license has been produced on the record. The police, without obtaining any report from the analyst, has proceeded to arrest the petitioner. One out of three mobile phones alleged to be connected with the petitioner, in fact does not belong to him. Despite police custody of five days, nothing has been recovered at his instance or from any place in and around Jaipur and Jhunjhunu districts. No transaction has been proved as to whom the petitioner supplied the alleged 'Nakli Deshi Ghee'.
3. Entire FIR is a rolled up FIR and suffers from misjoinder of charges as well as accused persons. Petitioner has been seriously prejudice from numerous allegations mentioned in the FIR.
4. It is argued that the Investigating Officer, who filed challan against the petitioner, has indiscriminately alleged the offence against the petitioner in as many as 24 Sections of the Indian Penal Code out of which only Sections 308, 328, 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC are non-bailable.
5. None of the offences under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, Copy Right Act, Trade Mark Act are made out against him, which in any case are bailable. The offences under Sections 119 to 273 of the Indian Penal Code do not apply to the petitioner. The prosecution has mechanically added the offences of Sections 308 and 328 of the IPC without there being any averment in the FIR of anybody getting injured. It is argued that the offence under Section 420 IPC is not at all made out as none has been named as the one who has been cheated in the charge-sheet and by whom. Section 420 of the IPC cannot be pressed into service when the allegation has been made under special enactment i.e. Trade Mark Act. The allegation of forgery is also not made out as no false document has been prepared nor it has been specified as to which document is forged. The offence relating to Sections 482 to 488 of the IPC are not made out against the petitioner, which in a
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
