Allowed

Santosh Kumar Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Aug 2024CRLMB/4936/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an FIR alleging removal of old lease deed records. The court held that post-retirement failure to hand over records does not presume criminal intent without prima facie evidence of tampering.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each; petitioner to appear for interrogation and not tamper with evidence.

Santosh Kumar Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:33383]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4936/2024

¶4

Santosh Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Jethmal Joshi, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Badlo Ka Chowk, Jodhpur, Tehsil And Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Dheerendra Singh Sodha
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Laxman Solanki,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Order

¶11

12/08/2024

¶12

This is an anticipatory bail moved on behalf of the applicant in relation to F.I.R. No.9/2024 of Police Station Bishangarh District Jalore, registered for the offence punishable under sections 381 of IPC.

¶13

Complainant made allegations accusing petitioner that one Ashok Kumar requested a copy of a lease deed related to a sale dated 22.11.1999 of file number 2 dated 15.07.1999, issued in the name of Hadmata Ram for the land situated in “Abadi” of village Nimbalana. However, copy of this document was not provided to him by Gram Panchayat Dangra. An inquiry was conducted by an inquiry officer of office of the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sayla which revealed that the lease deed was doubtlessly issued but its file and record is not available in the office. This suggests that the document related to the lease deeds

[2024:RJ-JD:33383]

[CRLMB-4936/2024]

(2 of 4)

issued before 2004-05 has been deliberately made to disappear from the record by the then Gram Vikas Adhikari Santosh kumar Joshi (petitioner). This fact has been confirmed by charge report of the then Gram Vikas Adhikari Rajesh kumar Meena. After registration of the said FIR the matter is under investigation.

¶18

Learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that there is no evidence available on record to show that the petitioner was given record pertaining to so-called patta in the charge by the then Village Development Officer and in absence thereof, it cannot be said that the petitioner has removed any record and committed any criminal offence as alleged in the FIR; that same has been got instituted on the basis of an enquiry report, which was prepared ex-parte because neither any notice was issued nor an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before conducting so-called enquiry and thus, the petitioner is sought to be enroped in this case due to ulterior motive. Therefore, looking to this aspect, no offence as alleged can be said to be made out against the petitioner. It is further argued that there are no allegations of petitioner tampering with the evidence and nothing is to be recovered from applicant. He has already retired from service long back. Therefore, to protect his life and liberty an order of anticipatory bail may be passed in his favour.

¶19

From the other side, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that on the basis of material

[2024:RJ-JD:33383]

[CRLMB-4936/2024]

(3 of 4)

collected so far, the investigation officer has reason to believe that petitioner is guilty of offences alleged by the complainant. He thus, prayed that in the facts of the present case, it is expedient that anticipatory bail application be dismissed.

¶24

I have appreciated the submissions advanced by the learned defence counsel and learned Public Prosecutor and have carefully perused the material available on record.

¶25

Applying the dictum and parameters to the instant case as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs State Of Gujarat reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152 and after having heard both the sides at length and on perusal of the Case-diary as well as material on record, it appears prima facie that instant case is primarily based on records of an office where the petitioner rendered his services as a government servant. He had retired even before the F.I.R. was lodged. The incident relates to a lease deed issued 25 years ago and no criminal intent of the petitioner has been alleged or revealed at this stage. If the petitioner, at the time of being relieved or transferred or otherwise, did not hand over the charge of his office records to his successor, this alone cannot be the basis for presuming his implication. After his relieve, the office records has remained in the possession of many subsequent officers for a long time. As an upshot of the above discussion and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the

[CRLMB-4936/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:33383]

(4 of 4)

petitioner under Section 438 Cr. P.C.

¶30

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Santosh Kumar Joshi in connection with the FIR No. 9/2024, Police Station Bishangarh, District Jalore, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/along with two sureties of Rs. 25000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on the following conditions: -

¶31

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶32

(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer;

¶33

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶34

(iv) that the petitioners shall abide by all the conditions specified under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.

¶35

The comments made hereinabove shall be considered

¶36

restricted to this bail application only and will not prejudice the final outcome of the case.

¶37

Disposed of accordingly.

¶38

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶39

96-Anshul/-

Santosh Kumar Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Joshi 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

Narayanlal Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Suryakanta Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Surya Prakash @ Suraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindra Kumar @ Parvindra Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan