Rishiraj Swami S/O Late Shri Shyoji Ram Swami vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Rishiraj Swami, filed a second bail application before the Rajasthan High Court. He is accused of offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, and has been in custody since February 22, 2021. The charge sheet has been filed, but the trial has not commenced. The petitioner claims to be a mere employee, that the main culprit, Harish Jain, was granted bail, and that the alleged offence is triable by a Magistrate with a maximum punishment of 5 years. The respondents opposed the bail, stating that the first bail application was dismissed on merits and no new circumstances warrant entertaining the second application. Documents of illness of the petitioner's father were submitted, but they were dated prior to the dismissal of the first bail application.

Held

The Court held that the first bail application filed by the petitioner was decided on merits. Consequently, no new grounds were made out for entertaining the second bail application, as there was no change in circumstances necessitating its consideration. The Court found no reason to deviate from its previous decision. Therefore, the second bail application was dismissed. The Court did not explicitly address the arguments regarding parity, the petitioner's role as an employee, the commencement of trial, or the nature of the offence, as it found the lack of new circumstances to be determinative. The operative direction was the dismissal of the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a second bail application when the first was dismissed on merits and no new circumstances have arisen, as per the arguments of the respondent. 2. Whether the petitioner, being a mere employee, should be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity, given that the main culprit was granted bail, as argued by the petitioner. 3. Whether the petitioner's prolonged incarceration, the non-commencement of trial, and the nature of the alleged offence (triable by Magistrate with maximum 5 years punishment) warrant granting bail, as contended by the petitioner. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued he was falsely implicated, has been in jail for approximately one year with no trial commencement, is a mere employee, and should be granted bail on parity with Harish Jain. He also argued that the offence is triable by a Magistrate with a maximum punishment of 5 years. Reliance was placed on several judgments including Dananjay Singh, Sanjay Chandra, Arnesh Kumar, and others. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent opposed the second bail application, asserting that the first was dismissed on merits and no new circumstances exist. They also argued that the submitted medical documents were not relevant as they predated the first bail application's dismissal. Reliance was placed on judgments like Ashok Kumar Sihotiya and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kajad.