PRASADI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This second bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bihari Lal submitted a complaint under section 190 Cr.RC. in the Court of Civil Judge & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Lalsot against the petitioner for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The court concerned sent the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.RC. for registration of the FIR, on the basis of which an FIR No. 23/2015 was registered at Police Station Mandavri District Dausa for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

(2.) Due to apprehension of arrest, the accused petitioner moved bail application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa which was dismissed on 7.5.2015. Thereafter, the accused petitioner moved bail application before this Court which was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 7.5.2015 with the direction to the accused petitioner to surrender herself before the court concerned. Thereafter the accused petitioner moved second bail application before this Court.

(3.) Counsel for the accused petitioner has submitted that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case, as she has nothing to do with the alleged incident. Counsel has further submitted that the complainant himself forged the documents for which an FIR came to be registered against him in which he was released on bail under section 438 Cr.PC. vide order dated 27.7.2015. Counsel for the accused petitioner has submitted that due to political rivalry, she has been implicated in the instant case. Counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is holding the post of Sarpanch and has nothing to do with the alleged incident. Counsel submitted that the offences were stated to be in the matters of Panchayat elections and the election matters have been taken care of under Chapter IXA of the Indian Penal Code which starts from 171F, 171G, 171H and 171-1. However, section 171G defines the false statement in connection with an election which states that any statements made with an intent to affect the result of an election etc. which is in fact false or which he either knows or does not believe to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate shall be punished with fine and is a non-cognizable and bailable offence and is triable by a Magistrate. Counsel has further submitted that when a particular offence has been described in the Penal Code which is distinct in nature and is couched for the purposes of preventing the offence or punishing the accused which is specific in nature for a particular offence. Counsel further submitted that in the manner the offence is required to be registered under the same section. In the present case, FIR has been registered under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B Penal Code which are the provisions of general import and when these provisions are of general import, the FIR could not have been registered under the general sections when a particular section has been enacted under the Act. Counsel submitted that it is a matter of interpretation of law that when the specific law is dealing with a particular purpose and with intent, the said law shall prevail over the general law. Under such circumstances it is the first submission that the aforesaid Sections are not applicable except Sec. 171G IPC. Counsel has further submitted that this court has granted anticipatory bail in almost all the cases on the basis of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the present case is an exception wherein the bail application was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench. In support of his submission counsel has placed reliance on an order dated 5.8.2015 passed by the Coordinate Bench of principal Seat at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 6745/2015 (Kiran Prajapati Vs. State of Rajasthan) which was disposed of with the directions that if she (petitioner in that case) shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bonds on her making a surrender before the trial court. Counsel has also placed reliance on an order dated 20.8.2015 passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 748/2015 Kiran Prajapati Vs. State of Rajasthan , wherein it has been observed that in the event of filing such application, it is expected from the trial court that the bail application of the applicant-accused will be decided on the same day and the case women accused may be considered in the light of Sec. 437(2) Crimial P.C. However, the stay order granted by this Court on 2.7.2015 shall remain in currency till the petitioner appears before the trial Court on 01.9.2015. Thus looking to the aforesaid facts and submissions the accused petitioner be enlarged on bail under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.