- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner as well as learned PP for the State on fourth bail application moved under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Dy. Director Alp- Bachat, Kota through a Jr. Accountant has lodged a report at P.S. Nayapura, Kota on 25.6.2007 that during the period from 2003 to 2006 one agent Smt. Pushpa Jain obtained cash amount and coins of Silver and Gold under the different schemes of agent encouragement by way of preparing forged securities and has committed forgery fabrication and fraud illegally. On inspection of the work performed by Smt. Pushpa Jain from 2003 to 2007, it was revealed that Pushpa Jain prepared forged passbooks having impression of signature and seal of Updakpal and fraudulently obtained a sum of Rs. 7,86,311/- cash, 2658 Gm. Gold, 36220 Gms. Silver, two wrist watch Sonata and caused loss to the Government Treasury received under different encouragement scheme for agents. It is revealed in the written report that from 12.6.2007 to 16.6.2007 a sum of Rs. 5,71,000/-, 66 gms. Gold and 310 gms, silver have been deposited by Smt. Pushpa Jain with the post office which has been kept in treasure. On the basis of the above report an FIR No. 242/2007 came to be registered at P.S. Nayapura, Kota for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that first bail application of the accused petitioner was dismissed on 21.11.2009. Thereafter, the accused petitioner moved second bail application, which was dismissed on 28.1.2010. Thereafter, again the petitioner moved third bail application, which was also dismissed on 16.4.2010. He submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. The accused petitioner is in judicial lock up since 23.10.2009. The offence alleged to have been committed by the accused petitioner is triable by Magistrate. He submits that from a bare perusal of statement of PW.l Deepika Mittal it is clear that no case is made out against the accused petitioner. Lastly, he submits that bail to co-accused person Rajendra Chaudhary has been granted by this Court, Thus, this fourth bail application of the accused petitioner may be granted and the accused petitioner be enlarged on bail. E-contra learned PP appearing for the State submits that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused petitioner is grave in nature. Thrice time bail of the accused petitioner has been rejected on merits and thereafter, no subsequent developments have taken place in the matter. Thus, looking to the gravity of the offence, the fourth bail application of the accused petitioner be rejected. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case, statement of PW.l Deepika Mittal as also the fact that no subsequent developments have taken place after rejection of the earlier bail applications, in my considered view it is not a Fit case where the accused petitioner can be enlarged on bail.
(3.) In the result this fourth bail application is devoid of merits and stands rejected.;