RATHORE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) I have perused the First Information Report reproduced in the bail application and the rejection order passed by the learned Court below on 18. 1. 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the present petitioner is similar to that of Lal Chand Saini who had already been enlarged on bail. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the accused Suraj Gupta is entitled for bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submitted that taking into consideration the nature of accusation against the petitioner Suraj Gupta and other accused persons, the bail should not be granted to the petitioner. The instant case initiated by Vijay Jain and four other persons, who filed a complaint before the Special Operation Group, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur. The detail report and also the note appended to it, goes to show that in the name of private finance company, many people have been cheated. Some of the informant, in this case, are also residents of district Jhalawar. The bail application of the co-accused Ashok Ramawat (7857/2006) was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 8. 1. 2007, taking note of the fact that he was only an employee and the owners of the Finance Company are Rakesh Kumar Khatri and Lal Chand Saini. Thereafter, the bail application of Brijesh Kumar (2200/2007) was filed and similar contentions were raised and he too was granted bail on 17. 5. 2007. It is to be noted that when at a later stage, the bail application of Lal Chand Saini (2694/08) came up for hearing before another Co-ordinate Bench, it was contended that the co- accused Brijesh Kumar and Ashok Ramawat had been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It was contended that the accused was only an employee and his case for grant of bail requires consideration in view of the fact that similarly situated co-accused had given indulgence of bail.
(3.) AS referred above, the bail applications of the other co- accused person was argued on the primary contention that the owner of the Finance Company are Rakesh Kumar Khatri and Lal Chand Saini, then it appears that at the time of bail application of Lal Chand Saini, the material facts were concealed, so much so, that even the argument made at the time of consideration of the bail application of the AShok Ramawat and Brijesh Kumar was not brought to the notice of that Co-ordinate Bench. I have perused the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the co-accused Lal Chand Saini had been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 15. 4. 2008. Today, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner also informs that Rakesh Kumar Khatri and Ashok Ramawat have already expired. However, in view of the facts that the accused Lal Chand Saini had been granted bail, this Court has no option but to enlarge the petitioner Suraj Gupta on bail. Consequently, the bail application of the petitioner Suraj Gupta is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Suraj Gupta S/o Manakchand Gupta in FIR No. 06/2006, Police Station Gangadhar, Distt Jhalawar, shall be released; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. . ;