Babita Sabu W/O Shri Vijay Kumar ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3581 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8326/2021

Babita Sabu W/o Shri Vijay Kumar Sabu, Aged About 54 Years,
R/o Plot No. F-B-16 Road No 14 V.k.i. Jaipur Director M/s Sabu
Super Edible Private Limited F-86 Road No. 14 V.k.I. Jaipur
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. R. K. Daga
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP.
                               Mr. Saransh Saini

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

12/08/2021

1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.05/2021 registered

at Police Station SOG Jaipur for the offence(s) under Sections 420,

406 and 120B of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has

been wrongly implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that as per FIR, case of the civil nature is

converted into criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that no specific allegation rendered in the FIR against the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner is 54 years old lady. She is housewife and taking Insulin

16 units per day. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

no ingredients of the cheating is made out by bare reading of FIR.

So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-8326/2021]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the

judgments of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of

Enforcement reported in [2020] 13 SCC 791, Uma Shankar

Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No.1049 of

1998) decided on 24.03.2004, Dalip Kaur & Ors. Vs. Jagnar

Singh & Anr. reported in 2009(5) SCC 368, Satinder Singh

Bhasin Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Writ Petition

(Criminal) No.242 of 2019) decided on 06.11.2019), Sushil

Sethi and Anr. Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors.

(Criminal Appeal No.125 of 2020) decided on 31.01.2020,

Nidhi Arora Vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Miscellaneous

Bail Application No.3952/2020) decided on 12.05.2020.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

respondent have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and submit that the petitioner and other

persons are the Director of M/s Sabu Super Edible Private Limited

and they had taken tonnes of Pulses from several persons. After

that, they had put fired in the premises of the company with

mala-fide intention. Insurance Company has not found the

incident of fire in the company. Learned counsel for the

complainant submits that petitioner and other persons had taken

the Pulses of Rupees 2 crore and 9 lacs from several firms.

Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that custodial interrogation

of the petitioner is required. Learned counsel for the complainant

also submits that Rupees 28 lac had been deposited in the

personal account of the petitioner. So, looking to the gravity of

offence, bail application be dismissed.

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-8326/2021]

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the

parties.

6. Allegations levelled against the petitioner is that the

petitioner was Director in M/s Sabu Super Edible Private Limited.

Petitioner and other persons had cheated the several persons and

taken Pulses of Rupees 2 crore and 9 lacs. Custodial interrogation

of the petitioner is also required. So, looking to the gravity of the

offence and allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not

consider it a fit case to enlarge her on bail.

7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Seema/14

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)