DILUBHA ALIAS DILAVERSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code is filed after rejection, by an elaborate judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham, of an application for similar relief. The petitioner is arrested on 5.2.2003 in connection with the offences reported by the F.I.R. dated 3.1.2003 registered as C.R. No.1 of 2003 wherein offences punishable under sections 409 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code were alleged against one Labh Shankar Rajgor insofar as 6000 galvanized sheets entrusted for the earthquake relief were stolen. The Deputy Mamlatdar (Earthquake), Bhachau, Kutch had reported to the Police Sub Inspector that 16,539 galvanized sheets were entrusted to a co-operative society, out of which, 6000 sheets of approximate value of Rs.18,00,000.00 were stolen and hence the offence was required to be registered. A report about loss of these relief material was made by the Secretary of the co-operative society itself which was entrusted with the work of storing and distributing the material. By now, the chargesheet is filed and investigation, as far as the petitioner is concerned, appears to have been completed with the remarkable fact that the person accused in the F.I.R. itself is stated in the chargesheet to be absconding and, as against him, the investigation is stated to be still going on.

(2.) Against the above backdrop of broad facts, the bail application was pressed mainly on the grounds that the chargesheet alleges against the petitioner and other co-accused persons offences punishable under sections 379, 411, 413 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code out of which only the offence of theft punishable under section 379 could be properly alleged against the petitioner. It was on that basis argued that the offence was punishable with imprisonment for a maximum term of three years, it was triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class and that in view of incarceration of the petitioner for more than nine months, he ought to be immediately released on bail. It was also contended that the stolen property was not recovered from the petitioner, that prima facie case was not made out against him and that the main accused person named in the F.I.R. was not even being arrested for full and proper investigation.

(3.) It was also submitted that the other accused persons were already released on bail and the petitioner was entitled to be released even on the ground of parity.