Nisha Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No.476/2018 of Police Station Phalodi, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. He has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and she is not connected with commission of crime in any manner. It is also submitted that though, the husband of the petitioner is named as accused in the FIR and simply on that basis, it cannot be said that the petitioner is involved in commission of crime in any manner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has never visited Jodhpur or Phalodi and from this fact itself it is clear that she is not involved in commission of crime in any manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to appear before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation. It is also submitted that only a meager sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has been deposited in the bank account of the petitioner, whereas the huge amount of money has been deposited in the bank accounts of various other persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, submitted that the petitioner be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed this anticipatory bail application, however, argued that as a matter of fact the petitioner is a member of gang/racket, which is involved in preparing forged degrees and also involved in permitting cheating and unfair means for various examination. It is argued that the gang/racket operated by the husband of the petitioner, duped around Rs.51,00,000/- from poor people by assuring them to provide forged degrees and to promise them to get passed in the examination by way of cheating and unfair means. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have also submitted that during the course of investigation it is found that some of the money received from the complainant party have also deposited in the bank account of petitioner and this fact itself sufficient to show that the petitioner is a member of gang/racket, which has duped lacks of rupees from the poor people.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.