Anubhav Purohit vs State of Rajasthan

M.C. Sharma, J.—This bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 438 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12.8.2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 12, Jaipur Metropolitan in bail application No. 167/2015 (2856/2015) whereby he dismissed the bail application.

The brief facts of the case are that on 11.6.2012 the complainant Ravindra Kumar Pareek submitted a written report at Police Station JDA, Jaipur to this effect that his relatives Kailash Pareek and Jai Kishan Pareek told him that the present accused petitioner is selling plots of land in Ganesh Vihar, Village Keshavpura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. In may 1990 they purchased three plots and Pattas of Shri Mahaveer Swami Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti were made available. In the year 2000 the Government laid High Tension Electricity line on the land of Ganesh Vihar and their plots came under the said High Tension Line. In the year 2005 when he went to check his plots then he failed to locate his plots. He tried to make contact with the present accused petitioner but could not establish contact. When he contacted Kailash Pareek and Jai Kishan, they assured that the petitioner would make them available another plots. It was also mentioned in the aforesaid complaint that in the year 2008 the complainant contacted the petitioner and he was told that if complainant would pay difference of amount, he would be given plots in Ganesh Vihar (Extension) or Nirmohi City. It was further mentioned that relying on it, they gave original pattas and thereafter could not establish contact with the petitioner as he had gone to foreign country. In this way he was cheated and he was not given another plots etc.

On the basis of aforesaid written report an FIR No. 400/2012 was registered for the offence under sections 420 , 406 and 120B IPC.

During the course of investigation the accused petitioner moved bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan which was transferred to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, S. No. 17, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter ''the court below''). The court below after hearing contesting counsel dismissed the bail application of the accused petitioner vide order dated 12.8.2015. The accused petitioner aggrieved with the order dated 12.8.2015 passed by the trial court has filed instant bail application before this Court.

Mr. Ashvin Garg counsel for the accused petitioner has submitted that the alleged occurrence has taken place 22 years ago and after a great lapse of approx. 22 years the complainant lodged the aforesaid FIR on 11.6.2012. Counsel further submitted that the High Tension Electricity Line came at the spot in the year 2000 itself while the complainant reached on his plot in the year 2005 itself after a great lapse of 15 years. It has been further submitted that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case as he has nothing to do with the alleged incident as the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused petitioner is triable by Magistrate of First Class. Counsel has placed reliance on the representation dated 17.9.2012 (Annex.2) submitted by the accused petitioner before the I.O. of P.S. JDA, Jaipur, which is reproduced as under:

Thus looking to the facts of the case the accused petitioner be enlarged on bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.

In compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 5.10.2015, the I.O of the case is present in person. He has submitted a detailed report relating to the cases against the petitioner, which is taken on record. I.O has stated before the Court that out of ten cases, police has submitted final/negative report in four cases. Out of six cases, two cases are under investigation, in two cases the police has submitted the charge-sheet and in two cases the police has also submitted charge-sheet against the accused petitioner under section 299 Cr.P.C. I.O further submitted that in the instant case he has obtained standing warrant against the accused petitioner and he has made much efforts for tracing out the accused petitioner but could not trace out him.

Mr. Madhav Mitra appearing for the complainant assisted by the learned PP have controverted the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that looking to the conduct and antecedents of the accused petitioner, he may not be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. They have submitted that the trial court has rightly dismissed the bail application of the accused petitioner, the operative portion of which is reproduced as under:

Mr. Mitra in support of his submissions has placed reliance in the case of Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), , the head-note of which is reproduced as under:

"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Ss. 438 and 82 - Anticipatory bail- Grant of- proper exercise of discretionary jurisdiction/disposal of bail application- Matters to be considered by court- Nature and gravity of accusation; antecedents; possibility of abscondence of accused- Conduct of accused- Relevance-Abscondence after interim protection against arrest had been granted- Effect of

- Reiterated, normally court should not exercise its discretion to grant anticipatory bail in disregard of magnitude and seriousness of matter- Matter regarding unnatural death of daughter-in-law at her in-law''s house was still under investigation and appropriate course was to allow Magistrate concerned to deal with the same on basis of material before court-Furthermore, besides definite allegation of cruelty arising out of dowry demand, appellant was also not available for interrogation and investigation after getting interim protection from Supreme Court, and had been declared "proclaimed offender/absconder" under S. 82 -Appellant not entitled to anticipatory bail-Appellant directed to surrender within a period of one week- Constitution of India- Art. 136 -Anticipatory bail- cancelled- Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 304B , 306 and 498A ."

Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner, learned PP, the counsel for the complainant and scanned the entire material made available to me.

From a bare perusal of the facts of the case as also the material made available to me it is clear that the conduct and antecedents of the accused petitioner is not good and looking to the same it is not just and proper to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail.

The anticipatory bail application is accordingly dismissed.