Dismissed

Babita Sabu W/O Shri Vijay Kumar Sabu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Aug 2021CRLMB/8326/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed the plea filed by Babita Sabu. The Court held that the gravity of the offence and the necessity for custodial interrogation made her unfit for bail.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is dismissed; the petitioner is not a fit case for bail.

Babita Sabu W/O Shri Vijay Kumar Sabu Vs State of… — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8326/2021

¶3

Babita Sabu W/o Shri Vijay Kumar Sabu, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Plot No. F-B-16 Road No 14 V.k.i. Jaipur Director M/s Sabu Super Edible Private Limited F-86 Road No. 14 V.k.I. Jaipur

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Daga For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP. Mr. Saransh Saini

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶9

Order

¶10

12/08/2021

¶11

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.05/2021 registered at Police Station SOG Jaipur for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of IPC.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per FIR, case of the civil nature is converted into criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific allegation rendered in the FIR against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is 54 years old lady. She is housewife and taking Insulin 16 units per day. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no ingredients of the cheating is made out by bare reading of FIR. So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶13

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-8326/2021]

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in [2020] 13 SCC 791 , Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No.1049 of 1998) decided on 24.03.2004, Dalip Kaur & Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in 2009(5) SCC 368 , Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No.242 of 2019) decided on 06.11.2019), Sushil Sethi and Anr. Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.125 of 2020) decided on 31.01.2020, Nidhi Arora Vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.3952/2020) decided on 12.05.2020.

¶15

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the petitioner and other persons are the Director of M/s Sabu Super Edible Private Limited and they had taken tonnes of Pulses from several persons. After that, they had put fired in the premises of the company with mala-fide intention. Insurance Company has not found the incident of fire in the company. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner and other persons had taken the Pulses of Rupees 2 crore and 9 lacs from several firms. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that Rupees 28 lac had been deposited in the personal account of the petitioner. So, looking to the gravity of offence, bail application be dismissed.

¶16

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-8326/2021]

¶17

I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties.

¶18

Allegations levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner was Director in M/s Sabu Super Edible Private Limited. Petitioner and other persons had cheated the several persons and taken Pulses of Rupees 2 crore and 9 lacs. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also required. So, looking to the gravity of the offence and allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge her on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

¶20

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶21

Seema/14

Babita Sabu W/O Shri Vijay Kumar Sabu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babita Sabu W/O Shri Vijay Kumar Sabu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shobharam S/O Shri Ramprasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Goswami S/O Amit Goswami Vs State of Rajasthan

Kunal Goswami S/O Amit Goswami Vs State of Rajasthan

Matebul S/O Mumtaj Ansari Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Kumar S/O Shri Suraj Mal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Prasad Chaturvedi S/O Shri Shankar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan