Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 828 (RAJ)

Ramanand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2009-03-23

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - This order governs the disposal of third bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC. by Mr. R.K. Jain Advocate on behalf of the applicant Ramanand Sharma pertaining to F.I.R. No. 96/08 registered at Anti-Corruption Bureau Jaipur in the offences under Sections 7/13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and read with 120-B of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in compliance of the directions issued vide bail order dated 01.08.2008 by the co-ordinate Bench, the trial court has recorded the statements of Buddhi Prakash Pareek and Rajesh Kumar Thakuria. Both these witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. These witnesses have nowhere stated anything against the petitioner with regard to soliciting for and acceptance of bribe or illegal gratification. Neither the petitioner is found to have demanded illegal gratification nor any bribe money is found to have been recovered from his possession. The petitioner has been in custody for the last 10 months. The trial of the case is likely to take time. The provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 437 of CrPC. envisages that in case the trial does not conclude within a period of 60 days, the accused should be enlarged on bail. This prayer was made before the learned trial court also but the same was not considered. Hence, in view of these circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner has been threatening the witnesses not to give the evidence against him. The case is of grave nature. The petitioner solicited for a bribe of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Hence, the petitioner, in view of these facts, does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. The case is of grave nature. The petitioner solicited for a bribe of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Hence, the petitioner, in view of these facts, does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material available on record including Manual popularly known as "Anti-Corruption Department, Manual of Instructions (Crime)", it is noticed that Para 12 of Chapter IX pertaining to 'Trap cases' of said Manual envisages that ''It should be a general rule in trap cases to release accused on bail subject to the satisfaction of conditions laid down in 437 Cr.PC." 6. This para envisages the arrest of the public servant in exceptional cases when it is found necessary in the interest of investigation or to satisfy the requirement of law or to prevent him from absconding but as a general rule he is not to be released on bail. I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but keeping in view the provisions as laid down in the Manual as also the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for last ten months, do feel inclined to grant him the indulgence of bail and his bail petition deserves to be allowed. 7. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Ramanand Sharma S/o Shri N.C. Sharma in F.I.R. No. 96/08 registered at Anti-Corruption Bureau Jaipur shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- together with one surety bond of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till the trial is concluded.Bail Application Allowed. *******