Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Bheru Lal And Ors v. State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Bheru Lal And Ors v. State Of Rajasthan And Ors

(High Court Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench)

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5779/2023 With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5789/2023 WITH S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5790/2023 | 23-05-2023

1. The present bail applications have been filed by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.69/2023, registered at Police Station Dhamottar, District Pratapgarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 120-B IPC.

2. As per prosecution, on 01.05.2023, complainant- Ramesh Chandra, ASI, P.S. Dhamottar, District Pratapgarh, received a secret and reliable information that one Arpit Labana by changing the packing of various food items, milk powder etc., provided by the State of Rajasthan to Government schools for free distribution amongst the students, is selling them in market. Upon receiving the aforesaid information, police searched the house of co-accused Arpit Labana, from where huge quantity of various food items, milk powder etc. was recovered, sent by State Government for distribution among the students of Government schools in pursuance of various Government schemes. On being inquired by the police, co-accused Arpit Labana could not produce any valid document/license to store the same. It was further revealed by co-accused Arpit Labana that these items had been procured from other co-accused persons namely, Vikram, Pradeep and Amul which were to be subsequently delivered to one Ajay, son of Lakshman.

3. As per prosecution, during investigation, it was revealed that co-accused Arpit Labana procured/purchased aforesaid items from the present petitioners who are teachers in Government schools, in exchange of money. Thus, the allegation against the petitioners is that they are culprits of pilfering various items received by them for distribution among students.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case; they have been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of statements of co-accused persons; the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are triable by court of Magistrate. Learned counsel submitted that none of the petitioners have criminal antencedents. It was submitted that the accused- petitioners are in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioners.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 

6. Having considered the submissions advanced at bar and facts and circumstances of the case so also the factual report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor, this Court prima facie finds that the petititioners who are Government employees are guilty of pilfering various items received by them for distribution among the economically deprived and rural students of Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) areas. The object of launching such welfare schemes by the Government is to encourage students belonging to economically backward or weaker sections of the society or low income familes to join and regularly attend school, so that they can become educated enabling them to conquer various challenges faced by them, despite them being members of the lowest rung of the society.

7. It is apposite to note here that the petitioners are Government employees, entrusted with the responsibility of popularising various Government schemes aimed at promoting education among the students of Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) areas. The petitioners have not only failed to perform the responsibility casted on them for personal gains but have in effect undermined the very object sought to be achieved by these schemes. The petitioner through their acts have cheated the public at large causing huge financial loss to the public exchequer.

8. Considering overall facts and totality of the circusmtances, the present bail applications are dismissed.

9. The petitioners shall however be at liberty to file fresh bail applications after filing of challan against them by investigating agency before competent criminal court.

10. It is made clear that the Court has not entered into the merits of the case and none of the observations herein, by itself, would operate prejudicial to the interests of the parties nor shall have any bearing on the final verdict by the Trial Court.

Advocate List

  • Mr. Vijay Kumar Gaur. Mr. Ramesh Chandra Purohit.

  • Mr. Shrawan Kumar

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Eq Citations
  • 2023/RJJD/016575
  • LQ/RajHC/2023/623
Head Note

Criminal Trial — Bail — Grounds for refusal of bail — Prima facie finding that petitioners are guilty of pilfering various items received by them for distribution among students — Object of launching such welfare schemes by Government is to encourage students belonging to economically backward or weaker sections of society or low income families to join and regularly attend school, so that they can become educated enabling them to conquer various challenges faced by them, despite them being members of lowest rung of society — Petitioners are Government employees, entrusted with responsibility of popularising various Government schemes aimed at promoting education among students of Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) areas — Petitioners have not only failed to perform responsibility casted on them for personal gains but have in effect undermined very object sought to be achieved by these schemes — Petitioners through their acts have cheated public at large causing huge financial loss to public exchequer — Held, considering overall facts and totality of circumstances, present bail applications dismissed — Constitution of India — Art. 21 — Right to life and personal liberty — Bail — Grounds for refusal of bail — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 439 (Paras 6 to 8)