Dismissed

Bhawani Singh S/O Shri Bajrang Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Oct 2022CRLMB/7975/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a fourth bail application filed by an accused in cases involving cheating, forgery, and counterfeiting. The court declined bail due to the petitioner's habit of committing crimes and inability to explain discrepancies in police reports regarding his criminal record, citing safety and fairness concerns.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Trial court requested to expedite trial. Police Commissioner directed to investigate discrepancies in criminal record reports.

Bhawani Singh S/O Shri Bajrang Singh Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IV Bail Application No. 7975/2022

¶3

Bhawani Singh S/o Shri Bajrang Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vill. Gudha P.s. Gudhagorji Distt Jhunjhunu At Present House No. 1 Satyanagar Jhotwara Ps Jhotwara At Present Tenant Virendra Singh Yadavs House No. 213 Amar Nagar C Ps Vaishali Nagar Jaipur Raj. ( At Present Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶4

----Accused/Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

----Non-Petitioner

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Prateek Kedawat with Ms. Kriti Pathak, Mr. Sankalp Todi & Mr. Prateek Barala
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. G.S. Rathore, GA-cum-AAG Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP Mr. Devendra Singh, SHO
	Police Station Murlipura, Jaipur (West)

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶10

Order

¶11

19/10/2022

¶12

The present fourth bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.179/2020 registered at Police Station Murlipura, District Jaiur for the offence(s) under Section(s) 420, 467, 468, 471, 473 & 120-B of I.P.C.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.07.2020 and out of total 24 prosecution witnesses, only 5 prosecution witnesses have been examined so

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CRLMB-7975/2022]

¶16

far. With regard to the criminal antecedents, learned counsel submits that he has already been acquitted in one case and discharged in another case. He, therefore, prays for benefit of bail.

¶17

Opposing the prayer, learned Government Advocate-cumAdditional Advocate General submits that there are 16 criminal cases registered against the petitioner out of which most of the cases are of similar nature. He submits that the petitioner, being a habitual offender, is dis-entitled for the benefit of bail.

¶18

Heard. Considered.

¶19

The first bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 17.09.2020. Thereafter, the second bail application filed by him was dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 11.01.2021 looking to the nature and gravity of allegations against him and especially his criminal record which, at that time, reflected nine other criminal cases as per the chargesheet. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred third bail application which came to be dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 01.12.2021. At that time, as per the status report dated 22.11.2021 furnished by SHO Police Station Murlipura, Jaipur (West), 13 criminal cases were registered against the petitioner. Thereafter, three more prosecution witnesses have been examined. Therefore, there is no substantial change in circumstance so as to entitle the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail except lapse of some time. As per the factual report submitted today by the SHO Police Station Murlipura, Jaipur (West), there are 16 criminal cases registered against the petitioner which also shows that misusing his liberty of bail granted on earlier occasion, the petitioner is indulging in offence of similar nature again and again. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Vijay

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CRLMB-7975/2022]

¶22

Kumar Meena Vs. State: 2008 (4) RLW 3041 , held that if an accused is shown to frequently and habitually indulging himself in commission of crimes one after the other and becomes the menace to the society, the liberty is required to be balanced against the larger interest of the society and benefit of bail cannot be extended to such an accused on consideration of his antecedents alone. In view thereof, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail.

¶23

Resultantly, the fourth bail application is dismissed. However, looking to the length of custody of the petitioner, the learned trial Court is requested to expedite trial of the case and endeavour to complete the same as early as possible.

¶24

In pursuance of direction of this Court dated 12.10.2022, the SHO Police Station Murlipura, Jaipur (West) has filed his affidavit dated 19.10.2022. The affidavit is accompanied with the factual report dated 19.10.2022 furnished by him which reflects registration of 16 criminal cases against the petitioner. As per the charge-sheet no.168 dated 01.10.2020 filed against the petitioner, 10 criminal cases were registered against him including the subject FIR. Thereafter, at the time of consideration of petitioner’s third bail application, the SHO Police Station Murlipura, Jaipur (West) filed the status report dated 22.11.2021 which reflected registration of total 13 criminal cases against him. In the present bail application, under direction of this Court dated 28.09.2022, the SHO Police Station Murlipura filed the factual report dated 11.10.2022 which reflected registration of 7 criminal cases against him whereupon, this Court was constrained to direct the SHO Police Station Murlipura to file his affidavit to explain the discrepancy as to criminal record of the petitioner. Today, two

¶25

(4 of 4)

¶26

[CRLMB-7975/2022]

¶27

factual reports have been filed by the SHO Police Station Murlipura. In one of the factual reports, total eleven cases are stated to be registered against the petitioner whereas, as per the factual report submitted alongwith the affidavit of the SHO, the number of cases registered against the petitioner is 16. There is no explanation lest satisfactory explanation as to discrepancy in the criminal antecedents of the petitioner submitted before this Court on different occasions. This Court is facing problem persistently wherein, correct picture of criminal antecedents of the accused persons is not being submitted despite repeated requests and directions by this Court to the police authorities hampering the administration of justice as, indisputably, criminal antecedents of an accused is an important factor while adjudicating his right of bail. On an earlier occasion, the Director General of Police has appeared before this Court and has assured that in future, utmost care will be taken while submitting the criminal antecedents of the petitioner; but, the problem is still continuing. However, in the present case, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the Police Commissioner, Jaipur to conduct a fact finding in the matter and apprise this Court the reasons of such discrepancy and the person(s) responsible.

¶28

List the matter on 16.11.2021 for perusal of the report of the Police Commissioner, Jaipur.

¶29

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶30

PRAGATI/19

Bhawani Singh S/O Shri Bajrang Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhawani Singh S/O Shri Bajrang Singh 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

Mukesh Sethi S/O Govind Narayan Sethi Vs State of Rajasthan

Swastik Cooper Pvt. Ltd. Vs Reserve Bank of India

Gopal Sharma Son of Late Shri Tolaram Dassa Vs Kamal Kant Son of Late Shri Tolaram

Kaushalya Bai Wife of Shri Bhanwar Lal Vs Manraj Son of Shri Madan Lal Meena

Mahadev Prasad Son of Late Shri Mohan Ji Parashar Vs Adhish Kumar Son of Late Shri Mohan Ji Parashar

Shabbir S/O Shri Joru @ Jormal Vs State of Rajasthan