Rohit @ Honey vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 5994 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2926/2021

1. Rohit @ Honey S/o Virendra Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o S-1/4, 43 Raj Shree Nagar Ardali Nagar Bazar Police Thana Shivpura District Banaras U P At Present House No. 53 Dakoli Airforce Enclave Near Krishna Enclave Jeerakpur Mohali Punjab Presently J P Aman Society Sector 151, Building No. 3 Floor No. 15 Flat No. 1507 Police Thana Knowledge Park Dist. Noida Gautam Budh Nagar U.p. (At Present In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar).

2. Smt. Archana [email protected] Anjana W/o Rohit Singh D/o Durgadas, Aged About 35 Years, R/o S-1/4, 43 Raj Shree Nagar Ardali Nagar Bazar Police Thana Shivpura District Banaras U P At Present House No. 53 Dakoli Airforce Enclave Near Krishna Enclave Jeerakpur Mohali Punjab Presently J P Aman Society Sector 151, Building No. 3 Floor No. 15 Flat No. 1507 Police Thana Knowledge Park Dist. Noida Gautam Budh Nagar U.p. (At Present In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar).

                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
State, Through Pp
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Jitendra Ojha
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. A.R. Chaudhary, PP
For Complainant(s)       :     Mr. Umesh Shrimali



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

01/03/2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on

record.

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. 65/2020 of Police

Station Kotwali, District Sriganganagar for the offences punishable

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-2926/2021]

under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC. He has preferred this bail

application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued

that petitioners have not committed any offence as the complainant

has deposited the amount in question with the Amazon Company

and not with the petitioners. It is further submitted that the

petitioners being the agents of the Amazon Company had acted on

its behalf and the said company did not provide the gift vouchers to

the complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioners are in

custody and they may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

complainant have opposed the bail application and submitted that

the petitioners were not legal agents of the Amazon Company and

they had received around Rs. 81,00,000/- from the complainant

and did not provide any gift vouchers to him. It is also submitted

that similar kind of cases have also been filed against the

petitioners in the State of Rajasthan, Punjab and Maharashtra.

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 bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the

petitioner.

Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioners

under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

121-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)