DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case arising out of FIR No. 239/2010 registered at Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur City (East), for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC. This Court on 9.9.2013 had passed the following order:

(2.) Thereafter, the case was listed before this Court on 12.09.2013 and learned counselor the petitioners sought an adjournment to advance the arguments. Order dated 12.09.2013 reads as under:

(3.) Today, the case has been listed for arguments. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lavesh is per incuriam and not in consonance with the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. vs. The State of Punjab, 1980 AIR(SC) 1632 To fortify his submissions, Mr. A.K. Gupta has submitted that the law has always been evolving. It is stated that after the decision was rendered by he Constitution Bench in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. , later there was a deviation of law in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 AIR(SC) 1042 and the position of law was later corrected by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide decision rendered in the case of Bharat Chaudhary & Another vs. State of Bihar & Another, 2003 AIR(SC) 4662 by holding that the bail cannot be for a limited period and furthermore, the same should be decided on merits of the case. To similar effect, reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010 AIR(SC) 1225In both the decisions rendered in the cases of Bhasrat Chaudhary & Another and Ravindra Saxena , relied by learned counsel for the petitioners, direct question in issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court was not whether a proclaimed offender is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail or not.