Rajbala (Smt.) Vs. State and anr. - Court Judgment |
| Criminal |
| Rajasthan High Court |
| Jan-20-2005 |
| S.B. Crimi. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 3443 of 2004 |
| Harbans Lal, J. |
| RLW2005(1)Raj475; 2005WLC(Raj)UC158 |
| Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439(2) |
| Rajbala (Smt.) |
| State and anr. |
| Dharamveer Tholia, Adv. |
| R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor and; Praveen Balwada, Adv. |
| Petition dismissed |
| Gheesyaand Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan
|
.....to be examined whether the person was fully integrated into the employers concern or has remained apart from and independent of it. the other facts which may be relevant are as to who has the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, to organize the work, etc. a full time worker usually works in a week for 40 hours or more depending on the award or agreement. if a person falls under the definition of workman under section 2(s) and does not fall in any excluded category, he will be covered by the definition of workman under the i.d. act, and he will be entitled to all the benefits under the said act. a perusal of section 2(s) indicates that it does not specifically refer to a part-time workman nor does it specifically exclude a part-time workman from the definition of :workman. since the number of hours is not the determining criterion for deciding whether a person falls within the definition of workman or not, it cannot be said that a part-time worker is not a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the i.d. act. however, to decide the status of a worker rendering services for less than 40 hours a week, various aspects are required to be considered. the..........learned sessions judge khetri in f.i.r. no. 165/2004 ps buhana for the offences under section 376, 354, 323, 341, 324 and 511 1pc.2. the relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid criminal case came to be registered on the basis of a parcha bayan of smt. rajbala, the prosecutrix alleging rape with her by accused-non-petitioner no. 2 at about 8.00 a.m. on 26.6.2004 when she was cutting green grass in her filed. the main and sole ground for cancellation of bail is that the bail was granted within a period of 7 days from the date of the arrest of the accused without taking into consideration the relevant 'facts of the case and the entire material including the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 cr.p.c.3. i have heard at length learned counsel for the parties and the learned public prosecutor for the state. i have also perused the relevant documents placed before me as also the authorities cited at the bar.4. it is now well settled by a catena of case of the apex court as well as of this court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations fro grant of bail. the bail once granted cannot and.....
Harbans Lal, J.
1. This petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated 7.7.2004 granting bail to non-petitioner No. 2 Om Prakash by the learned Sessions Judge Khetri in F.I.R. No. 165/2004 PS Buhana for the offences under Section 376, 354, 323, 341, 324 and 511 1PC.
2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid criminal case came to be registered on the basis of a Parcha Bayan of Smt. Rajbala, the prosecutrix alleging rape with her by accused-non-petitioner No. 2 at about 8.00 A.M. on 26.6.2004 when she was cutting green grass in her filed. The main and sole ground for cancellation of bail is that the bail was granted within a period of 7 days from the date of the arrest of the accused without taking into consideration the relevant 'facts of the case and the entire material including the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard at length learned counsel for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the relevant documents placed before me as also the authorities cited at the bar.
4. It is now well settled by a catena of case of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations fro grant of bail. The bail once granted cannot and ought not to be normally cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are cogent and overwhelming facts and circumstances on record to do so. The Apex Court has laid down some of the grounds for cancellation of bail in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1993 SC 1).The petitioner has neither pleaded nor proved any one or more of the grounds laid down in the aforesaid case by the Apex Court for cancellation of bail. This Court has also held in the case of Gheesyaand Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan (1988 RCC 534) = (RLW 1988 (2) Raj. 326), that the bail should not be cancelled merely because a graver offence is found to have been committed as a result of investigation.
5. After a careful consideration of the submissions in the light of the facts of the case and the well settled law governing the cancellation of bail, I am clearly of the view that no case for cancellation of bail is made out and the ground on which the bail is sought to be cancelled is not legally tenable for cancellation of bail.
6. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.