RAJESH NIDHI @ RAJESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application has been filed under Sections 438 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail as the applicant/ petitioner is having reasonable apprehension of his arrest in connection with Sadar (Sahar) P Case No.530 of 2011 dated 25.12.2011, corresponding to G.R. No.2278 of 2011, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the petitioner is Managing Director of the security agency namely M/s Shiva Protection Force Pvt. Ltd. and is neither connected in any manner with the alleged offence nor the petitioner was present at the time of occurrence of the alleged offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is no legal evidence, connecting the present petitioner, is found during the course of investigation as it reveals from the case diary. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen having no criminal antecedent and is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation and shall abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Learned A.P . appearing for the State opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that the present petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations made against the present petitioner connecting him with the alleged offence. It is also submitted that Paragraph65 of the case diary and Paragraphs25 and 26 of the supplementary case diary indicates that the present petitioner has failed in discharge of his duty to the extent that he did not properly verify as to whether the main accused is having a valid licence or not before engaging him as a security guard. It is further submitted that an application has been made on 27.3.2014 before the court below for issuance of process under Section 82 of the Cr.P as the petitioner was absconding. In response to this submission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition seeking anticipatory bail was filed before this Court on 18.01.2014 and since then, the same is pending, and therefore, in no way the present petitioner can be said as an absconding person. Moreover, the application for issuance of process under Section 82 has been filed before the leaned court below on 27th March, 2014 i.e. subsequent to the petition filed by the present petitioner before this Court seeking anticipatory bail and there is nothing in the case diary to indicate that the process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued.