Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Rajasthan No straightjacket formula can be laid for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail and application for anticipatory bail is to be decided on basis of available facts in each case MANU/RH/0252/2018 - (17 Apr 2018) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Nirmala Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">Present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is preferred by the Petitioner apprehending her arrest in connection with FIR lodged at Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(C) (D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Earlier the anticipatory bail application of the Petitioner has been rejected by the Special Judge. 
In the above referred FIR, it is alleged that the Petitioner while holding the charge of District Supply Officer (I), ('the DSO (I)') illegally demanded 35020 quintals of wheat for the purpose of distributing it to the privileged families under the National Food Security Act by falsely showing number of 33000 families increased in Jodhpur urban area. It is alleged that after receiving 35020 quintals of wheat, the Petitioner sold the same to owner of flour mill by making forged bills and as such she earned crores of rupees for herself and other accused-persons by illegal means. It is further alleged that, 35020 quintals of wheat was misappropriated by the petitioner and other accused-persons and as such the State Government is put to the loss of crores of rupees. 
Present matter requires a deep investigation to unearth the scam in which several higher ups may also be involved. In Modaram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and K.K. Mathur v. State of Rajasthan Supreme Court observed that, in the matter of accepting or dismissing the plea of anticipatory bail, facts involved in each case are to be examined and the bail orders passed in any other case, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of that case, cannot be treated as legal precedent. 
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu & Anr. and in Sudhir v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. has declined to extend the benefit of pre arrest bail to the accused-persons after taking into consideration the allegations of corruption and misappropriation of public funds. No straightjacket formula can be laid for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail and the application for anticipatory bail is to be decided on the basis of available facts in each case. 
In view of allegation of misappropriation of 35020 quintals of wheat, meant for needy, poor and deprived section of society which includes women and children, amounting to crores of rupees against her and looking to the fact that the same was allotted on the demand of the Petitioner and distributed by her, at this stage, it cannot be concluded that, there is no involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime. In the absence of custodial interrogation of the Petitioner, there is all possibility that investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR No. 306/2017 lodged at Police Station, A.C.B. C.P.S. Jaipur may be hampered or stalled. Hence, benefit of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner cannot be extended. Consequently, the instant anticipatory bail application filed by the Petitioner under Section 438 CrPC is dismissed. However, the investigating officer is directed to always interrogate the Petitioner in custody in the presence of a lady police officer.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Relevant : Modaram and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan <manuid>MANU/RH/2664/2015</manuid>, State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu and another <manuid>MANU/SC/0892/1997</manuid></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Anticipatory bail, Benefit, Extension</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>