Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 1568
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Nirmal Bhartiya - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 938 of 2023
Decided On : 24-01-2023
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.120(b), S.420, S.467, S.468, S.471
Headnote
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - The court granted bail to the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., considering the nature of the offences, the duration of detention, and the fact that co-accused had been granted bail. The court emphasized that the offences are triable by Magistrate and that the applicant's continued detention was not justified given the circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 356/2021 for offences under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B. The applicant had been in custody for over six months, while co-accused had been granted bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offences were triable by a Magistrate and noted that the main beneficiary of the alleged forged documents had been granted bail. The court deemed it just to grant bail to the applicant.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the nature of the offences, the duration of detention, and the status of co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant's continued detention was not warranted given the circumstances, including the fact that other co-accused had been released on bail and the offences were triable by a Magistrate.
Result: The second bail application was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail upon executing a personal bond and sureties.
Mr. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Shrawan Kumar Bishnoi, PP, Mr. Om Rajpurohit, Advocate and Mr. Govind Ram, Advocate, for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. This IInd Bail Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 356/2021, Police Station Sujangarh, District Churu, for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after filing supplementary charge-sheet, the other co-accused, including Sunil Chanwariya, who was the beneficiary of the purported forged documents has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the applicant is behind bars for a period of more than six months for the offences alleged.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the offences alleged are triable by Magistrate and trial is likely to take sufficient time, hence, the applicant be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that there are 12 cases of like nature against the applicant and thus, the benefit of bail not be granted to him.
5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in three cases and one FIR has been quashed by this Court and therefore, the stand of the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant is factually incorrect.
6. Be that as it may.
7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.
8. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that offences are triable by Magistrate and other co-accused, including, the main beneficiary of the transaction (Sunil Chanwariya) has been enlarged on bail, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused-applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
9. Consequently, the IInd Bail Application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that applicant Nirmal Bhartiya S/o Sh. Shiv Bhagwan Bhartiya arrested in connection with FIR No. 356/2021, Police Station Sujangarh, District Churu shall be released on bail; provided he executes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
10. The applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
11. Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.
