JUDGMENT 1. - When this bail application was taken up today in its turn for hearing and disposal learned counsel for the applicant Shri S.R. Bajwa to begin with made a request for adjournment on the plea that passions has been aroused and that they should be allowed to 'settle down' first. When this ground was found by me to be without substance he next tried to seek adjournment on the ground that to satisfy what called his own conscience he wanted (I reproduce his own wording) to ascertain whether the two officials of the High Court who were said t6 have been involved in the incident had been placed under suspension or not before arguing this bail application. When this ground too was found by me not a good ground for adjournment as their suspension or otherwise could have no bearing on the fate of this application he next took up the plea that he should be allowed an adjournment all the same as his client was on the run on account of this case and he wanted to seek instructions from him which he had not been able up to now to obtain because his client was, to use his words, on the run because of this case against him. When I gave the counsel to understand that this too was not a valid ground for adjournment as it was for the counsel to seek his instructions from his client well in time more so as this bail application has been pending since its institution on 2.4.1997 and has already been dealt by two Hon'ble Judges firstly on 4.4.1997 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.C. Dalela and secondly on 15.4.1997 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Yamin before the assignment of this bail application to me by name by order dated 19.4.1997 of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the most I could do was to accommodate him to this extent that I could take up the bail application in the second round he the learned counsel for the applicant S.R. Bajwa submitted that in that event he would not be appearing in this bail application and thereafter forthwith walked out of the Court room. That being so I am left with no option except to dispose of this bail application after myself examining the matter and hearing the learned Standing counsel appearing for CBI which I proceed to do. That being so I am left with no option except to dispose of this bail application after myself examining the matter and hearing the learned Standing counsel appearing for CBI which I proceed to do. Let the hearing in the bail application continue. Present : None for the applicant. Mr. G.C. Chatterjee Standing Counsel, for the CBI I have gone through and considered the contents of the bail application, have heard Standing Counsel CBI Mr. G.C. Chatterjee and have gone through the case file brought by the Investigating Officer CBI Inspector Surendra Singh. It is now nearing the lunch recess. Order in the bail application would be pronounced after the lunch break today itself. 2. Dharam Chand Jain applicant accused in case RC 5(A)/97/SPE/JPR dated 13.3.1997 registered at Special Police Establishment Branch, Jaipur under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC and Section 5(2) r/w Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 who apprehends his arrest in the case has made this application for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. The prosecution case is that Dharam Chand Jain accused applicant heading a land grabbing mafia active over a period of time in successfully plundering their highly valuable land from poor agriculturists situate within the urban area of Jaipur town, who to that end had set up New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. with himself as Secretary besides two or more than two score such Samitis, used to somehow or the other obtain thumb impressions/signatures of his gullible intended victims on blank/stamped blank papers and then used these to forge documents showing that they had parted with their lands to him and further to the same end aided and abetted by co-accused RL Jhalani then posted as Manager of the Sanganer Jaipur Branch of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (for short SBBJ) and co-accused Jagannath pursuant to a criminal conspiracy entered into by the three of them used to open fictitious bank accounts in the name of such victims in the said SBBJ Bank Branch Sanganer, Jaipur with Jagannath signing the account opening forms as introducer and as well signing the deposit slips by which deposits were purported to have been made in such fictitious bank account, in a bid to show that they had deposited the considerations received by them for their lands in the said Bank Branch. Further according to the prosecution true to this modus operandi Dharam Chand Jain accused applicant in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy entered into by him J.L. Jhalani and Jagannath co-accused opened a fictitious bank account in the name of one Dhanna S/o Neta Meena r/o Village Gatore Sanganer Jaipur on 21.5.1981 with Rs. 5 /- and thereafter the same day Rs. 79,000 /- was purported to have been deposited in the account with Jagannath co-accused acting as the introducer and as well signing the deposit slip. Further according to the prosecution thereafter the next year (that is in the year 1982) said Dhanna filed a civil suit against Dharam Chand Jain accused applicant for permanent injunction to restrain him from interfering with his ownership and possession of his land measuring 2 Bighas 14 Biswas situate in V. Gatore Sanganer Jaipur in any manner as he had never alienated his land to him stating that the necessity for the suit having arisen as Dharam Chand Jain accused applicant had come and proclaimed that he had purchased the land from him. Further according to the prosecution in that suit against him he Dharam Chand Jain accused applicant produced photostat copy of a fictitious agreement to sell dated 31.7.1975 purporting to have been entered into by said Dhanna to sell his said land measuring 2 Bighas 14 Biswas to him (accused applicant) at the rate of Rs. 30,000 /- per Bigha with a recital in this fictitious document that Rs. 2,000/- has been paid as an advance and the rest would be paid to him by the period ending 30.8.1981. According to the prosecution this forged agreement to sell bore the signatures of co-accused Jagannath as an attesting witness. Further according to the prosecution using this modus operandi Dharam Chand Jain accused applicant had by now succeeded in grabbing a sezeble chunk of Jaipur town and his nefarious activities in this direction had led the Rajasthan State Police to arrest him in the year 1994 in case FIR No. 271 dated 18.7.1994 under sections 420, 467, 468 & 474 IPC and his interrogation after his arrest in that case had led to the registration by the State Police of a few more cases against him and he was in custody at that time for 20 days or so. The instant case was registered by a CBI Superintendent of Police, Jaipur acting on the basis of a reliable source. 4. In essence the grounds for anticipatory bail set up in the bail application are that no offence at all is made out and that the accused applicant is a respectable man whose arrest in this case would tarnish his image beyond retrieval. The argument in sum and substance by the learned CBI Standing Counsel while opposing this bail application is that the accused applicant was heading a Land grabbing mafia which up to now had succeeded in grabbing more than half of Jaipur town, that the ongoing investigation into the case up now had revealed no more than the proverbial tip of the iceberg and that grant of anticipatory bail to the accused applicant in this case was uncalled for. 5. Upon a consideration by no stretch of reasoning or imagination can it be said that no offence whatsoever is made out. The plea that his arrest would tarnish his image, needless to say, by itself is hardly a sufficient ground for allowing anticipatory bail to an accused. During investigation into this case raids conducted on 22.3.1997 on the residence and the said Samiti Office of the accused applicant have led to the recovery of a total of not less than 144/- (One hundred forty four) blank papers/blank stamped papers bearing thumb impressions/signatures of various persons presumably land owners and potential victims (and the accused applicant is said to have 20 / 25 odd offices of the various Samitis set up by him with the aim and object of land grabbing that are still to be raided and searched) indicating that the argument by the learned CBI Standing Counsel that the what had been revealed up to now by the investigation was merely the tip of the iceberg, therefore, carries weight. The investigation is in progress. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the offences and bearing in mind that power to grant anticipatory bail is to be sparingly used this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the accused applicant. 6. The investigation is in progress. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the offences and bearing in mind that power to grant anticipatory bail is to be sparingly used this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the accused applicant. 6. Before parting with this bail application, however distasteful I may find so doing, I cannot help making mention (to put it mildly) of a somewhat sordid sequel to the filing of the instant application for anticipatory bail by Dharm Chand Jain accused applicant that has led to the registration of yet another case No. RC 11(A)/97/SPE/JPR dated 15.4.1997 got registered by Shri G.C. Chatterjee CBI Standing Counsel under sections 120-B IPC r/ w Section 12/7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Gautam, Reader to the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of this High Court at Jaipur, Vinod Bhandari Office Assistant Civil Section likewise of this High Court at Jaipur and Dharam Chand accused applicant. According to this FIR at 6.00 p.m. on 1.4.1997 CBI Standing Counsel Shri G.C. Chatterjee was approached at his house-to be exact in his chamber situated in a part of his house-by Gautam Reader to the Hon'ble The Chief Justice who gave him to understand that he wanted to speak to him about Dharam Chand Jain accused who wanted his help in procuring bail from the High Court after rejection of his bail application by the Court of Sessions at Jaipur to be promptly told by the CBI Standing Counsel in categorical terms that he could expect no help from him. The instant bail application was filed on 2.4.1997. Further according to this FIR on 14.4.1997 Vinod Bhandari Office Assistant Civil Section of this High Court at Jaipur approached Shri C.C. Chatterjee CBI Standing Counsel at 2130 his. in his chamber and at that time he Vinod Bhandari gave him CBI Standing Counsel to understand that he wanted his help in the matter of the bail application of Dharam Chand Jain accused and at that time he Vinod Bhandari told the CBI Standing Counsel that Gautam Reader to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice had already talked to Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.C. Dalela regarding the bail application of Dharam Chand Jain accused and he wanted him CBI Standing Counsel to take adjournment on 15.4.1997 on which date the bail application was listed in the cause list before Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.C. Dalela regarding the bail application of Dharam Chand Jain accused and he wanted him CBI Standing Counsel to take adjournment on 15.4.1997 on which date the bail application was listed in the cause list before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Yamin and when the CBI Standing Counsel Sh. G.C. Chatterjee told Bhandari that he would not seek adjournment and argue the case Bhandari placed on his table a bundle of 40 (forty) currency notes the numbers of which are given in the FIR each currency note of the denomination of Rs. 500/- as bribe for doing the favour of seeking adjournment before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Yamin on the next day (15.4.1997) and left paying no heed to the pleas of the CBI Standing Counsel to take back the money. As per the FIR all this was witnessed by Sh. Ashwini Kumar Sharma Jr. Advocate who was sitting in his chamber with the CBI Standing Counsel. Further according to this FIR thereafter on the next day 15.4.1997 the CBI Standing Counsel Sh. G.C. Chatterjee first contacted Sh. V.P. Bishnoi Advocate junior to Sh. S.R. Bajwa Sr. Advocate counsel for Dharma Chand Jain accused applicant in this bail application who pleaded for his help in seeking adjournment in the bail application and then the CBI Standing Counsel went to the chamber of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Yamin and narrated the sequence of events to him culminating in the proferred bribe of Rs. 20,000/- afore-mentioned after which Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Yamin took the CBI Standing Counsel to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice where Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.C. Dalela was as well sitting and he the CBI Standing Counsel narrated the sequence of events to their Lordships who after hearing him directed him to report the matter to the CBI for a probe leading to the registration of this case. It has to be borne in mind that after this instant bail application was filed on 2.4.1997 the same was on 4.4.1997 dealt with by Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.C. Dalela who had passed an order that day that the bail application was to he put up after one week after showing the name of Special PP CBI in the cause list. This is apparently the case that the learned counsel for the accused applicant Sh. Justice D.C. Dalela who had passed an order that day that the bail application was to he put up after one week after showing the name of Special PP CBI in the cause list. This is apparently the case that the learned counsel for the accused applicant Sh. S.R. Bajwa was alluding to when speaking of passions having been aroused though it is difficult to see how the registration of this case could arouse any passion and when he was speaking of ascertaining-ostensibly to ease his conscience-whether the two High Court Officials had been placed under suspension or not in his unsuccessful bids to seek adjournment though suspension or otherwise of the two High Court Officials as observed by me in my earlier orders passed today which shall be read with and form part of this order disposing of this application can have no bearing on the fate of this bail application. 7. As discussed by me above this most certainly is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to Dharm Chand Jain accused applicant. This application for anticipatory bail filed by him is, therefore, turned down. 8. Pronounced in open Court today the 25.4.1997 after lunch break in the presence of none for the applicant and Mr. G.C. Chatterjee CBI Standing Counsel who is present with the Investigating Officer CBI Inspector Surendra Singh who has brought the file of the case.Bail application dismissed. *******