Neeraj Purbia vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 7870 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7870 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 October, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Neeraj Purbia vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 October, 2023

Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas

[2023:RJ-JD:32233]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 68/2023 Neeraj Purbia S/o Sh. Premchand, Aged About 51 Years, 263/20 Saheli Nagar Ps Sukher Dist. Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Jain (Anchaliya) S/o Sh. Bheru Lal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Vill. Pinda Ps Nikumbh Teh. Badi Sadri Dist. Chittogarh (Raj.). Presently R/o H.no. 73, Taygore Nagar Sector 4 Hiran Magri Udaipur (Raj.). The Then Deputy Superintendent Of Police, City (Circle West) Udaipur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Girish Joshi
                                Mr. Rishabh Handa
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP
                                Mr. Dungadan Charan


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

                                 Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT                                                 04/10/2023

The present bail cancellation application has been preferred

by the petitioner under Section 439(2) of CrPC against the order

dated 15.05.2023 granting bail to respondent no. 2 in bail

application no. 5244/2023 arising out of FIR No. 507/2022, Police

Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for the offences under

Section 7, 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and

Section 384, 120B of IPC.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the accused-respondent no. 2 is giving death threats by sending

[2023:RJ-JD:32233] (2 of 4) [CRLBC-68/2023]

unknown persons and thereby tampering with the evidence. The

witnesses are terrified and it is probable that they may not depose

against the said accused. The accused has breached bail

conditions and as such, it is prayed that the bail so granted may

be cancelled.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2-accused submits

that an FIR No. 455/2023 was registered at Police Station Sukher,

District Udaipur for offences under Section 341, 323, 385, 190,

387, 120B of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act against the

respondent no. 2 for the alleged death threats. It is further

submitted that the police, after investigation, has found that a

false case has been foisted against the accused. It is also

submitted that the witness-Ramakrishnan Iyer who was alleged to

be threatened is not listed as a witness in the case arising out of

FIR No. 507/2022 registered at PS Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor, while relying upon the factual

report dated 06.09.2023 in matter pertaining to FIR No.

455/2023, PS Sukher submits that the police after investigation

has not found any case made out against the respondent no. 2

and a negative final report bearing no. 111/2023 dated

11.08.2023 is proposed to be filed in the Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

6. Bail cancellation in the present case is primarily sought on

the ground that the accused is threatening the witness and is

tampering with the evidence. It is contended that the accused has

misused his liberty. After having carefully gone through the

[2023:RJ-JD:32233] (3 of 4) [CRLBC-68/2023]

record, it is amply clear that there are two cases being referred to

in the present application. After going through the list of witnesses

in the case arising out of FIR No. 507/2022, PS Anti Corruption

Bureau, Jaipur, Ramkrishnan Iyer who is alleged to be threatened

is not named as a witness. In FIR No. 455/2023 which was lodged

by Ramkrishnan Iyer himself, a perusal of the factual report

reveals that a false case is foisted due to personal enmity between

the parties. A negative final report is proposed to be filed in the

said matter. Thus, it is clear that the witness allegedly threatened

was not a witness in the case for which bail has been granted to

the accused. Furthermore, negative final report is proposed to be

filed in case arising out of FIR No. 455/2023. Mere assertion of

threat is not sufficient to constitute ground for cancelling the bail

already granted. Therefore, I do not find that the accused has

misused his liberty.

7. In Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra,

reported in MANU/SC/0048/2004, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held

that:

"11. Learned Counsel for the Appellant is correct on principles that mere assertion of an alleged threat to witnesses should not be utilized as a ground for cancellation of bail, routinely. Otherwise, there is ample scope for making such allegation to nullify the bail granted. The Court before which such allegations are made should in each case carefully weigh the acceptability of the allegations and pass orders as circumstances warrant in law. Such matters should be dealt with expeditiously so that actual interference with the ordinary and normal course of justice is nipped in the bud and an irretrievable stage is not reached."