Shankar Lal vs State

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. 221/2019 of Police Station Sumerpur, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B of IPC. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of the first bail application of the petitioner by this Court on 19.08.2019, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B of IPC and the same are triable by the Court of Magistrate. It is also submitted that co-accused Mana Ram, who happened to be the father of the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail and taking into consideration this fact, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he lured the complainant and several other persons to invest their hard earned money in a Credit Co-operative Society and assured that they would get good returns in lieu of their investment in the said society. The complainant and other persons believing the petitioner had deposited an amount of around Rs.4,50,000/- from time to time as per instructions of the petitioner, however, when no returns were given to them, they urged the petitioner either to give them benefit or to return their money but the petitioner and his father assured them that they would get their money very soon, but later on, they refused to repay the same. It is submitted that the scams of similar nature in various co-operative societies are rising and only poor people are being victimized. It is submitted that there is all possibility that the petitioner might have cheated other poor persons also and if he is enlarged on bail, he would be indulged in similar type of activities in future.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge-sheet.

In the complaint, the complainant and other witnesses have specifically alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused person, who happened to be his father had lured them to invest money in the Credit Co-operative Society in question and believing them, the complainant and other persons invested their hard earned money in the Credit Co-operative Society, however, the money deposited by them in lieu of getting good return was not paid to them and, as such, the petitioner and other co-accused persons misappropriated the money. It is true that the scams in credit co-operative societies are on the rise and only poor people are being victimized. It is a general tendency that after committing such scams, the accused persons seek bail on the ground that the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail but there are incidents wherein, the victims even after filing of the criminal complaint are facing constant harassment during the course of investigation but would not get anything. If such persons are being enlarged on bail only on the ground that the offences, for which, charge-sheet has been filed against them are triable by the Court of Magistrate, it would amount to encouraging the accused persons.

On last two dates, counsel for the petitioner sought time to verify whether the petitioner or his father are willing to return money to the victims or not. Today, learned counsel has informed that they are not in position to repay the money. The Court cannot ignore the agony of poor victims who were deprived of their hard earned money by the actions of petitioner.

It is noticed that co-accused person namely Manaram, who has been enlarged on bail was of sixty seven years of age and the allegation against him was only to the effect that he accompanied the petitioner on some occasions, when he approached the victims.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected