BUDDARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second bail application by the accused Petitioner under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure. The first bail application No. 7991/2009 was dismissed by this Court on 6.11.2009 by a detailed order.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this second bail application are that on 14.9.2009 at 5.00 p.m. Devi Prasad, Incharge, Distribution Centre Saras Dairy Palsana and Ratan Singh Godara, Food Inspector Sikar appeared before the Police Station Dantaramgarh and complained that at Chopar Bajar Danta in the shop Prafulit Saras Parlour, in the name of pure ghee of saras impure saras ghee has been sold. On the basis of written report the Incharge Police Station with police force started at 5.15 p.m. for searching the shop of Prafulit Saras Parlour at Chopar Bajar Danta. On reaching there they found one Hanuman singh sitting and on searching shop 13 boxes treademark of Saras each one ltr. and one tin of pure Saras Ghee written in English of 15 Ltr. net were found. Devi Prasad, the officer of the Distribution Branch, Saras Phalsana Dairy told that those trade mark is false trade mark and the ghee is not pure and it is adulterated. In the complaint it was also alleged that on opening the said boxes, the seal and packing were also found different from the original packing and even the mark was found false besides that batch number and date were not affixed on the tin. The learned Counsel stated that the police has completed the investigation and has submitted challan against the accused persons including the present Petitioner. The accused Petitioner moved bail application under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Sikar but the same was came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2009. Hence this second bail application has been filed for release of the accused Petitioner. The learned Counsel argued that the Petitioner is in judicial custody since a long considerable time and continued detention of the Petitioner is now not warranted for any purpose as now nothing is to be recovered or to be investigated from him. The offence alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner are triable by Magistrate and the trial of the case will further take long consideration time, hence it was prayed that he be enlarged on bail. The allegations leveled against the Petitioner are totally false and concocted. Co-accused Hanuman Singh has been enlarged on bail by this Court and the case of the present Petitioner is not distinguishable to that of the said co-accused person.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that there are serious allegations of selling impure ghee in the name of pure ghee of Saras by him and he is the son of proprietor Jamni Devi of the shop concerned. The co-accused who has been released on bail was employed by him. In these circumstances to further curb the selling of impure ghee in the name of pure ghee of saras, in such a heinous offence, the accused Petitioner should not be released on bail. The Addl. Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application of the accused Petitioner took note of all these material against the accused Petitioner. He has rightly denied bail.