Rajasthan High Court
[email protected]@Topi S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 February, 2021
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IIIrd Bail Application No. 2151/2021
Mukesh @ Kalu @ Topi S/o Shri Surgyani, R/o Ward No. 18
Mohalla Buchaheda Kasba Kotputli Dist. Jaipur Raj.
(At Present Confined In Sub Jail Kotputli Dist. Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Chand Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Order
16/02/2021
This IIIrd bail application has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail in FIR No.
465/2020 registered at Police Station, Kotputli, District Jaipur for
the offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2nd bail
application of the accused petitioner was dismissed by this Court
vide order dated 10.12.2020 on the ground that 8 other cases
have been registered against him, out of which 6 cases are related
to the offence under Section 19/54 and 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise
Act and last case was registered against the petitioner in the year
2019 for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise
Act. He further submits that out of 8 cases, as aforesaid, the
petitioner has been acquitted in 6 cases and now only 1 other case
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-2151/2021]
for similar nature is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner
is behind the bars since long and the conclusion of trial is likely to
take long time, hence he may be enlarged on bail. He has passed
over the copy of the judgment dated 18.5.2016 passed by Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur in Regular Cr. Case
No. 1254/2015, copy of the order dated 3.6.2016 passed by Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur in Cr. Case No.
753/2015 and copy of the order dated 13.6.2016 passed by Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur in Cr. Case No.
209/2015, which are taken on record.
Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the
same. He submits that in the aforesaid cases, the petitioner was
convicted under the provisions of Rajasthan Excise Act, but after
recording his conviction, benefit of probation was granted to him
under Probation of Offenders' Act. A perusal of the aforesaid
judgment / orders passed by the court below reflects that the
petitioner was granted probation on the assertion of his counsel
that it was his first offence but he did not disclose the fact that
other cases of similar nature were also pending against him and /
or he was convicted therein. In this way, the petitioner concealed
the material facts and misled the trial courts time and again. For
these reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
Taking into consideration the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, more particularly in view of the fact
that the petitioner concealed material facts from the courts below
and obtained probation time and again, without expressing any
opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I don't deem it
just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-2151/2021]
Therefore, this 3rd bail application filed by the
petitioner is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed
accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
DK/34
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
