Dismissed

Jairam Yadav v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2016CRLMB/14969/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court upheld the trial court's order denying bail due to serious allegations, the implication of a huge amount involved, and the observation that the petitioner is a habitual offender.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's bail application dismissed; order rejecting bail confirmed.

Jairam Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶2

O R D E R

¶3

S.B.CR. MISC. BAIL APPL. NO.14969/2015

¶4

(Jai Ram Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan )

¶5

DATE OF ORDER ::::: 02/02/2016

¶6

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶7

Mr.Sudhir Jain, for the petitioner/s. Ms.Meenakshi Pareek , Public Prosecutor for State. Mr.Mahendra Meena, for complainant.

¶8

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C against the impugned order dated 3.12.2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur.

¶9

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Santokh Singh, Director of Shree G.Forex Ltd filed a complaint before the ACJM, Shahpura on 31.7.2013 against several persons in relation to the land bearing Khasra Nos.1119, 1124 and 1125 of Dhani Gaskan, Tehsil Virat Nagar, Distt. Jaipur in which it was alleged that the aforesaid land were purchased from Mamraj and Koshlya Devi vide registered sale deed dated 17.6.2006 by the complainant and lateron one another person impersonating himself as a Director of the Company sold the land bearing Khasra no.1124 and 1125 for Rs.18,90,000/- and land bearing Khasra no. 1119 for Rs.21,90,000/- on 28.3.2013. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, the complaint filed by respondent no.2 was sent under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C to police Station Shahpura, Jaipur Rural on which FIR No.332/2013 was registered at P.S. Shahpura, Jaipur Rural for the offences mentioned therein

¶10

against the accused persons. During the course of investigation, the accused petitioner was arrested. Thereafter the petitioner moved bail application before the learned Court below under Sec.439 Cr.P.C, who vide detailed impugned order dated 3.12.2015 dismissed the bail application. Hence this bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that although the petitioner has nothing to do with the sale deed dated 28.3.2013, the petitioner is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in this case, no specific role or involvement has been attributed to the petitioner. It is also submitted that co-accused has been released on bail and the case of the petitioner is on better footing, there is no case made out against the petitioner. It has also been contended that from the perusal of charge-sheet, it is clear that there is no evidence to prove or show that petitioner has received any money from any person or even otherwise there is no ingradients for the alleged offence in the whole of the charge-sheet. The accused petitioner is in judicial lockup since long, trial of the case is likely to take time, hence, the accused petitioner should be released on bail.

¶12

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and contended that there are serious allegation leveled against the petitioner. In this matter, huge amount of

¶13

Rs.18,90,000/- and Rs.21,90,000/- is involved and after detailed investigation police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner is habitual offender, hence he should not be released on bail.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the trial court, which are reproduced as under:

¶15

प�र�/अभ�य�क क� व�रद 350 ब�घ� ��भ� क� 16 इकर�रन�� क�टरच�त त�र पर परर��द" स$द"प य�द� स� करन� क� स$ब$ध �& दर( पर� स � न� ररप)ट( स$खय� 206/11 प�भ+स र�न� प�गप�र� �& पसत�त ककए गए आर)प पत क2 पतत पत��+" पर उप+बध ह7। उक आर)प पत स� पर� दषय� यह र�हहर ह)त� ह7 कक प�र�/अभ�य�क आर)वपत अपर�ध क2 पक<तत क� इस� पक�र क� अपर�ध क�ररत करन� क2 प<ष��भ� क) पर� दषय� सपष करत� ह7।

¶16

पकरण �& अनय सहअभ�य�कगण क� र��नत प�र(न� पत इस नय�य�+य द�र� प � ( �& ख�ररर ककए र� ��क� हB तर� प�र�/अभ�य�क क� पकरण अनय सहअभ�य�कगण स� अ+ग नह"$ ह7। पकरण �& ��नन�य र�रसर�न उच� नय�य�+य क� तनदDश�न�स�र अन�स$ध�न क� पश�त क�छ अभ�य�कगण क� व�रद आर)प पत नय�य�+य �& प�श ह�आ ह7 तर� श�ष अभ�य�कगण क2 चगरफत�र" � अन�स$ध�न श�ष ह)न� पत��+" क� अ�+)कन क� आध�र पर सपष ह)त� ह7।

¶17

अत: पसत�त पकरण क� तथयK, पररससरततयK तर� अपर�ध क2 गम��रत� क) दवषगत रखत� ह�ए पकरण क� ग�ण��ग�ण पर क)ई हटपपण� ककए बबन� र��नत प�र(न� पत स��क�र ककय� र�न� नय�यस$गत पत�त नह"$ ह)त� ह7।

¶18

पररण��त: प�र�/अभ�य�क रयर�� प�त सरद�र�+ र�तत य�द� तन��स� ग�� ख�+न� , तहस�+ क)टप�त+" , सर+� रयप�र द�र� पसत�त र��नत प�र(न� पत अ$तग(त ध�र� 439 दणS पकTय� स$हहत� एतदद�र� अस��क�र कर ख�ररर ककय� र�त� ह7।

¶19

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, and

¶20

after going through the findings arrived at by the trial court, as quoted herein above, I do not think it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

¶22

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶23

Sandeep/-1

¶24

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. SANDEEP RAWAT,P.s.

Jairam Yadav v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jairam Yadav v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish and Anr. Vs State Urban Developmentors

Prahlad and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ved Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Vs State Engergy Depors

Bhanwar Lal and Anr. Vs D G P andANR

Babu Lal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.