PINKY DAIMA @ VIJAY DAIMA Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Initially FIR has been filed in connection to Chand Khan from whom fake currency notes have been recovered. On the information of Chand Khan, two persons, Mehboob and Ramesh Soni have been arrested. From Mehboob Rs. 90,000/- and from Ramesh Soni, Rs. 800/- has been recovered. Only evidence against the present petitioner is that Yogesh has stated that he has handed one bag of currency note to him. His statements have been recorded twice, during investigation. Yogesh has been examined before the court below and he has not supported the prosecution story. Highest case of the prosecution is that he has received some money form Chand Khan for which Yogesh has not supported the prosecution story. Charge sheet has been filed in the year 2005 against co-accused and for present petitioner matter was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. After 9 years, on 20.1.2014, application before Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu has been filed to procure arrest warrant under Section 37 of the Police Act without any basis hence the present petitioner has apprehension of his arrest. He earlier moved application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. which has been dismissed by the court below. The present petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

(2.) Further contention of the present petitioner is that he is not absconding from the proceedings and documents placed on record show that he is working in Geetanjali Infretech Ltd. since 2008. He is income tax payer and his whereabouts were known.

(3.) Further contention of the petitioner is that issuing of arrest warrant under Section 37 of Police Act is not a bar to entertain the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and reliance has been placed on Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730 wherein it has been held that where arrest warrant has been issued and the petitioner has not been declared proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Code, he is entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. Further reliance has been placed on Shokat Panwar v. State of Raj. and ors., (Cr. Appeal No. 1962/2013) where the reliance has been placed on Lavesh (supra). The contention of the petitioner is that he has not been declared absconder and only arrest warrant has been issued under Section 37 of the Police Act, hence the petitioner be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail.