GANESH DUTTA AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the prevailing atmosphere in the country of various scams putting question mark on the public integrity and cleanliness in this case in hand, the public morality and honesty have been or attempted to have been abraised and contused. Here, the petitioner-accused have allegedly attempted to offer bribeful temptations to and to abduct for keeping in secrecy and confinement, an M.L.A. in order to topple the Government. The case is under investigation and whatever the offence(s) the Investigating Officer may finally choose to apply according to his wisdom, it seems that the petitioners have allegedly had some money for the M.L.A. as a motive for inducing him to go to Delhi for the said purpose, and the petitioners are alleged to have instigated or persuaded the complainant to approach the M.L.A. to so induce him and when the complainant could not be successful in this regard, they are alleged to have threatened that they would forcibly abduct him (M.L.A.).

(2.) The exact overt-act is not the principle entailing the bail. The nature of offence or its abatement and its effects on the society are the factors which cannot be lost sight of while deciding the question of bail. The provisions of Sec. 438, Criminal procedure Code cannot be pressed into service and come to aid as an arm to the person who commits a wrong having demoralising effect on the society. Obviously, soft justice in such a matter is required to be avoided.

(3.) I think, in such a case, the normal procedure of investigation and arrest should be allowed to take place and it should not be circumvented by grant of anticipatory bail.