Subhash Garg Son Of Surajmal Garg vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1103 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 193/2022

Subhash Garg Son Of Surajmal Garg, Resident Of Pipaliya Mandi,
District Mandsor (Madhya Pradesh)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Upman, Advocate (through video conferencing) For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahala, Public Prosecutor

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

28/01/2022 This anticipatory bail application has been filed under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 101/2021

registered at Police Station Misroli, District Jhalawar for the

offence under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(D)

and 7 of the E.C. Act, 1955 and Section 12 of the Fertilizer

(Control) Order, 1985.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner had purchased the said property and also a lot of

investment was done on the premises to revive the fertilizer plant.

As per report dated 16.07.2021, site was found satisfactory.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's firm also

submitted a detailed representation to address the same on

06.09.2021. Learned counsel further submits that licensing

procedure of the firm of the petitioner was under process and the

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-193/2022]

petitioner informed that the same was very much lying in the

premises. Petitioner was in no way connected with the old

business of the firm as he had recently purchased it. Learned

counsel further submits that despite all the transparent means

adopted by the petitioner to revive an old establishment, the

Investigating Agency ought to give notice under Section 41A

Cr.P.C. to the accused persons. Learned counsel further submits

that from the FIR and evidence collected during the course of

investigation, no case is made out against the petitioner. Learned

counsel further further submits that Section 7 of the EC Act is

bailable. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment

passed by Guahati High Court in AB No.1205/2017 (Shri Jayanta

Kumar Das Vs. State of Assam), decided on 27.10.2017. Hence,

the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be

granted.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has

opposed the bail application.

During the course of argument, learned Public

Prosecutor has produced case diary as well as factual report for

perusal and submitted that as per factual and FSL report, sample

of the alleged fertilizer, taken in the present case found spurious.

Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner may be

rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the

petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner looking to the

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-193/2022]

facts of the present case as the sample of alleged fertilizer was

found spurious as per factual and FSL reports.

Therefore, considering the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the State as well as factual and FSL report of

alleged fertilizer and gravity of offence; but without expressing

any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this court

deems it not proper to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner

is dismissed.

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

Ashish Kumar /52

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)