Sushil Kumar vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 6973 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 2438/2022

Sushil Kumar S/o Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o

Surjeet Colony, Gali No. 11, Sriganganagar, At Present Sub-

Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Sangriya, District Hanumangarh,

Raj. (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail, Sangriya)

----Petitioner Versus

State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramniwas Haniya

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

10/05/2022

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

co-accused persons namely Nitesh Kumar, Sukhvindra

Singh and Satpal have already been enlarged on bail. It

is further submitted that huge amount of cash has been

recovered from the above named co-accused persons and

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-2438/2022]

only rupees five lakhs have been recovered at the

instance of the petitioner. It is also submitted that since

the similarly situated co-accused persons have already

been enlarged on bail, the petitioner may also be granted

bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed

the bail application and submitted that as a matter of

fact, the petitioner being the bank manager has hatched

conspiracy with the other co-accused persons and got the

bank looted. It is further submitted that an amount of

rupees one crore thirteen lakhs was looted from the bank

by the co-accused persons at the instance of the

petitioner. It is also submitted that the case of the

petitioner is not identical to that of other co-accused

persons, who have been enlarged on bail, as in the

present case, the petitioner being the bank manager was

infact a trustee of the money deposited in the bank, but

he himself has got his bank looted with the aid of other

co-accused persons. It is, thus, prayed that in the above

facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner may

not be enlarged on bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

taking into consideration the fact that the allegation

against the petitioner is to the effect that he being the

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-2438/2022]

manager of the bank hatched a conspiracy with the other

co-accused persons and got dacoity in the bank, I am not

inclined to enlarge him on bail.

Hence, this second bail application is dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

113-msrathore/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)