Rajasthan High Court
Rishiraj Swami S/O Late Shri ... vs Union Of India on 11 February, 2022
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 18092/2021
Rishiraj Swami S/o Late Shri Shyoji Ram Swami, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Plot No.9, Maharaja Agrasen Nagar, Baas Bilwa,
Sanganer, Jaipur. (Presently Confined At Central Jail Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Superintendent, CGST,
Jaipur Through P.p.
2. State of Rajasthan, Through The P.p.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Charu Patni, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing
Counsel
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
11/02/2022
The second bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. in connection with File No.IV(06)115/AE/JPR/2020 filed by
the Office of Commissioner, CGST Jaipur (PS) for the offence(s)
under Section 132 CGST Act, 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars
since 22.02.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits
that petitioner is behind the bars about one year and trial has not
commenced till today. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner is
mere employee in the firm and main culprit Harish Jain was
enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. So, on
the ground of parity, petitioner be enlarged on bail. Learned
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-18092/2021]
counsel for the petitioner also submits that offence against the
petitioner is triable by Magistrate and maximum punishment
alleged offence is 5 years. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the following judgments : (1) Dananjay Singh S/o Shri Hari
Sharan Singh Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.18825/2021; (2) Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI in
Criminal Appeals No.2178/2011 with Nos.2179-82 of 2011
decided on 23.11.2011; (3) Anup Ashopa Vs. Union of India
in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4028/2020; (4)
Sanjeev Jain Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.3608/2021; (5) Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of
Bihar and Anr. In Criminal Appeal No.1277/2014 decided
on 02.07.2014; (6) Hemant Kumar Singhal Vs. Union Of
India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8676/2020;
(7) Pradeep Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12093/2020; (8) Anil
Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India in S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.15605/2020; (9) Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs.
Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2 nd Bail Application
No.3031/2021; (10) Ganesh Raj Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. In
Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No.783/2005
decided on 01.04.2005 and (11) Ronak Kumar Jain Vs.
Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.16083/2021.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that the first bail application filed by the petitioner was
dismissed on merits. So, no new circumstances arises for
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-18092/2021]
entertaining the second bail application. Learned counsel for the
respondent also submitted that petitioner had filed the documents
of illness of his father but they are of January, 2021 and first bail
application was decided on 07.09.2021. So, these are not relevant
documents. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted
that the second bail application filed by the petitioner be
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon
the following judgments : (1) Ashok Kumar Sihotiya Vs. Union
of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application
No.15140/2021; (2) Mahendra Saini Vs. State of Raj. in
S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.14670/2021; (3)
Sumit Dutta Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. 3 rd Bail
Application No.15193/2021; (4) State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs. Kajad in Appeal (Crl.) No.907/2001 decided on
06.09.2001; (5) Smt. Amal Mubarak Salim Vs. Union of
India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1870/2015
and (6) Syed Mohammad Zama Vs. State of Rajasthan in
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11193/2014.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the
respondent.
First bail application filed by the petitioner was decided on
merits, so, no new ground is made out for entertaining the second
bail application as there is no change in circumstance
necessitating entertaining the second bail application.
Dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /19
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
