[2023:RJ-JP:23802]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 78/2023

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Western Region Pipelines, Phagi

Road, Chaksu, Jaipur Through Senior Manager Mr. Netram Meena

S/o Shivlal Meena, Western Region Pipelines, Phagi Road,

Chaksu, Jaipur-303901.

----Complainant-Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

2.

Jagveer Singh S/o Munshi Lal, R/o Thairawar, Police

Station Kumher, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

----Accused-Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 79/2023

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Western Region Pipelines, Phagi

Road, Chaksu, Jaipur Through Senior Manager Mr. Netram Meena

S/o Shivlal Meena, Western Region Pipelines, Phagi Road,

Chaksu, Jaipur-303901.

----Complainant-Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

2.

Raju Singh S/o Amar Singh, R/o Thairawar, Police Station

Kumher, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

----Accused-Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

Mr. Rahul Sinsinwar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

18/09/2023

1.

Heard the parties.

[2023:RJ-JP:23802]

(2 of 3)

[CRLBC-78/2023]

2.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has filed these applications for

cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2 in both the

matters by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Dudu, District

Jaipur in Bail Applications No. 209/2023 and 204/2023 vide orders

dated 03.06.2023 and 02.06.2023 respectively. The matters

relates to FIR No.178/2023 registered with Police Station Phagi,

District Jaipur (Rural) for offence under Section 15(1)(2) of the

Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in

Land) Amendment Act, 2011.

3.

According to FIR, some unknown persons were found

engaged in the activity of damaging the petroleum pipeline and

committing theft of petroleum product. The miscreants could not

be identified, hence, the FIR was lodged against unknown. By the

impugned order, the Court below granted bail to respondent No.2

in both the matters, considering the fact that the respondents

were not named in the FIR nor any incriminating item was

recovered from their possession. The Court below already noticed

criminal antecedents of the respondents while granting bail to

them. The Court below has considered the argument of the

petitioner that the minimum punishment prescribed for the

offence is 10 years.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 16C

of the said Act creates a bar on grant of bail, unless the Court is

satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that the

accused is not guilty of such offence or is not likely to commit

such offence in future. The impugned order does not show that

the Court below has recorded such ground of belief.

[2023:RJ-JP:23802]

(3 of 3)

[CRLBC-78/2023]

5.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that

subsequently, co-accused Yogendra Singh has already been

allowed anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8629/2023 on 17.07.2023

and allegation against the respondents is identical to that of

Yogendra Singh. Moreover, the petitioners were granted regular

bail.

6.

Identical provision in NDPS Act was considered by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of

Odisha vide SLP No.4169/2023 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court

said that the prolonged incarceration, generally militates against

the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21

of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty

must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)

(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

7.

Though this is not a case of prolonged incarceration, but this

is certainly a case of non identification of the perpetrator of cri