Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 1206
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Chandra Kumar Songara, J.
Prateek Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15862/2022
Decided On : 24-11-2022
Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, Advocate with Mr. T.C. Sharma, Advocate., for the Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sheoran, Public Prosecutor, Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni, Advocate with Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the Complainant, for the Respondent;
The court's decision was influenced by the nature and gravity of the accusations, the modus operandi adopted by the accused, and the criminal antecedents of the accused in reaching its decision to dismiss the bail application.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Act - 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 204, 120-B, 66-C, 71, 74 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. and the gravity of the offences under the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act. The court also referred to previous bail orders and the observations made in those orders. The court considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the modus operandi adopted by the accused, and the criminal antecedents of the accused in reaching its decision to dismiss the bail application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail. The petitioner was arrested for offences under the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act. The petitioner contended that his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and no role was assigned to him. The trial against him had not been concluded within sixty days as per Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges had been framed against the petitioner, statements of prosecution witnesses had been recorded, and sincere efforts had been made for early disposal of the case. The court also noted that bail had been granted to co-accused by the same court. The court considered the gravity of the offence, factual report, and criminal antecedents of the petitioner in reaching its decision.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the applicability of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., and the observations made in previous bail orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the modus operandi adopted by the accused, and the criminal antecedents of the accused in reaching its decision to dismiss the bail application.
Final Decision: The 2nd bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. Instant 2nd bail application has been preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, namely Prateek Mishra in a case arising out of F.I.R. No.132/2021 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur City (South) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 204 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 66-C, 71 & 74 of Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner are that in the present case, neither the name of petitioner has been mentioned nor any role has been assigned to him in the F.I.R. and he is not even the beneficiary of litigation pending. The petitioner was arrested on 06.12.2021 and since then he is behind the bars.
3. Supplementary charge-sheet has been filed. All the alleged offences are triable by 1st Class Magistrate. As per contents of F.I.R., no allegation has been levelled against the petitioner nor any offence, prima-facie, is made out against him. Charges have been framed against him on 30.03.2022. Despite lapse of sixty-days, the trial against him has not been concluded. Thus, looking to the mandate of Section 437 (6) of Cr.P.C. and the fact that the co-accused/persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide its order dated 30.09.2022, the present petitioner may be granted benefit of bail on the ground of parity.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has placed reliance upon the following bail orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court:- (1) Umesh Singhal v. State of Rajasthan, (SB CRLMB No.10671/2021 dt. 08.03.2022), (2) Ducia Bogdan Nicolae & another v. State of Rajasthan (SB CRLMB No.7376/2022 dt. 18.05.2022) (3) Hasibur Rahman v. State of Rajasthan, (SB CRLM4 th Bail No.2372/2022 dt. 18.07.2022) and (4) Neetin Shah v. State of Rajasthan, in SB CRLMB No.5759/2022 dt. 24.08.2022.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, have strongly opposed the bail application.
6. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the anticipatory bail application was filed on behalf of co-accused, namely Surendra Singh before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, wherein it has been averred in Para-7 that he came under the influence of Advocate Prateek Mishra due to his greed and to secure a better future for his family, he took loans on his house and has given Rs.15,00,000/- to the Advocate.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has further drawn attention of this Court towards the bail order dated 10.09.2021 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prateek Mishra (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12717/2021), wherein while dismissing the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, it has been observed as under :-
"A perusal of the case diary reflects that besides the disclosure statements of the co-accused, showing complicity of the present petitioner in the offence, other incriminating evidence also, such as discovery of incriminating evidence on the information furnished by co-accused under Section 27 of the Act of 1872, copies of various writ petitions filed by the petitioner as counsel wherein favourable orders have been forged. Forging of the order of this Court is a serious matter and in view of the availability of incriminating material against the petitioner in the case diary, this Court is not satisfied that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted. In so far as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gurbaksh (supra) is concerned, this Court is in respectful agreement with the same; but, the same has no applicability in the present case."
8. Lastly, it has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the provisions of Section 437 (6) of Cr.P.C. are not mandatory as Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C., a
