AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kuldip Singh, Judge
This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioners on bail in FIR No. 144/2011 dated 28.11.2011 registered at Police Station, Jhakadi, under Sections 379, 34 IPC.
It has been stated that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The names of the petitioners were allegedly disclosed by driver and conductor of truck from which some pipes belonging to I &PH Department were recovered. The driver and conductor were arrested. The petitioners have no knowledge about the incident. The G.I. pipes were allegedly stolen from Village Dofda and recovered from Dobi. The petitioners on account of registration of case apprehend their arrest in the above case. The petitioners are innocent, they have committed no offence. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds as per the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioners on bail.
The status report has been filed. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. of Rattan Bhushan clerk of Nand Lal contractor. He has stated that Nand Lal contractor had taken contract from I &PH Department of laying pipes from Bhajwa to Uchi Khad. He had been executing the work on the spot through labour since March, 2011. He had kept pipes of 6 metres and 6 inch dia near Dofda khad on the road. On 28.11.2011, he was informed that those pipes have been taken by driver and conductor in truck No. HP-27A-0773. He came out and himself saw the said truck carrying those pipes proceeding towards Rattanpur. He, Pawan and Sunder Lal in the vehicle of Pawan chased the truck, but driver and conductor succeeded in taking the pipes. He has stated that the driver and conductor committed theft of pipes valuing Rs. 22,500/-.
The learned Additional Advocate General has stated that there are in all six accused Rajesh Khanna, Rajiv Mehta, Jeet Singh, Nand Lal, Kali Bahadur driver and Amar Singh conductor. Kali Bahadur and Amar Singh were arrested on 28.11.2011, who named other accused involved in the commission of offence. It has been stated that FIR No. 101/2003 was registered against Rajesh Khanna for offences punishable under Sections 341, 506, 323 IPC at Police Station, Jhakadi which is pending trial. FIR No.106 dated 16.08.2008 was registered against Rajesh Khanna at Police Station, Jhakadi, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 149, 323, 307 IPC, but he has been acquitted in that case on 27.02.2010. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the police file. The learned Additional Advocate General has stated that investigation in the case is complete and recovery has also been made. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that accused Kali Bahadur and Amar Singh have been released on bail by learned Sessions Judge, Rampur Bushahr, on 08.12.2011 in the above case. In the status report, the Investigating Agency has not stated that petitioners are not co-operating in the investigation nor it has been stated that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required in the above case. It has been stated that petitioner Rajesh Khanna may terrorize the prosecution witnesses, but nothing has been stated whether during investigation of the case petitioner Rajesh Khanna has terrorized the prosecution witnesses. The Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to proceed against petitioner Rajesh Khanna in case he will terrorize or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. The petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, application is allowed and in the event of arrest of petitioners in FIR No. 144/2011 dated 28.11.2011 registered at Police Station, Jhakadi, under Sections 379, 34 IPC, the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.