Rama Ram vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 8906 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8492/2020

1. Rama Ram S/o Shri Pancha Ram, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Choudhary, R/o Alwada, Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore.

2. Jema Ram S/o Shri Naringa Ram, Aged About 47 Years, By Caste Choudhary, R/o Alwada, Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore.

----Petitioners Versus State, Through P.P.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8493/2020 Kera Ram S/o Rekha Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Kushalpura, At Present Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore.

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.P.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP Mr. Gulab Singh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Judgment

06/04/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the

material available on record.

So far as the bail application No.8492/2020 filed on behalf of

the accused Rama Ram and Jema Ram is concerned, this is the

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-8492/2020]

second bail application filed on their behalf under Section 438

Cr.P.C. The first bail application filed on behalf of these accused

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected by this Court way back on

10.10.2017. No change in circumstance has occasioned thereafter

so as to entertain this second application for pre-arrest bail.

Otherwise also, after going through the impugned order and the

material available on record, it is clear that there are distinct

allegations that the accused-petitioners and the co-accused

persons, mislead and defrauded large number of persons by

forming a fictitious scheme under the title of Shri Krishna

Marketing. In this manner, the innocent villagers were induced to

make investments into the scheme and thereafter, their money

was misappropriated. It may be stated here that number of

accused persons were arrested in this case and even their regular

bail applications were initially rejected. Subsequently after

remaining in custody for a significant period of time, these

accused were enlarged on bail.

In this background, considering the nature and gravity of

allegations, I am not inclined to grant indulgence of pre-arrest bail

to the petitioners.

Thus, both these applications for bail under Section 438

Cr.P.C. are rejected as being devoid of merit.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

61 & 62-/Devesh Thanvi/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)