Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 185 (RAJ)

Rajendra Kumar Jat v. State

2020-01-21

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No. 153/2017 of Police Station C.P.S. Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from bare reading of the FIR, it is clear that the petitioner was not a party to the alleged conversation took place between the complainant and 'kanungo' - Patram Godara, who allegedly demanded bribe for him. It is further submitted that in the FIR, the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is to the effect that when the complainant offered bribe money to the 'kanungo' Patram Godara, he refused to take the same and asked the complainant to give the said money to the petitioner. It is submitted that even in the FIR, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner, who is practicing as an Advocate was not interested in settling the deal between the complainant and Patram Godara. Learned counsel has submitted that the trap made by the ACB was failed and the main accused Patram Godara was not caught by the ACB while taking the bribe. It is further submitted that after thorough investigation, the police proposed to file chargesheet against the main accused Patram Godara but the competent authority did not grant prosecution sanction to prosecute him, therefore, it appears that no charge-sheet has been filed against the 'kanungo' Patram Godara. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the person, who allegedly demanded and received bribe from the complainant has not been prosecuted, no case against the petitioner is made out and, therefore, he is entitled to be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this anticipatory bail application and submitted that this is second anticipatory bail application of the petitioner before this Court and the same is not maintainable. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is noticed that the first anticipatory bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2019 while granting him liberty to file a fresh anticipatory bail application before the trial court in view of the subsequent event that the competent authority refused to grant prosecution sanction against the main accused Patram Godara. 5. It is noticed that the first anticipatory bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2019 while granting him liberty to file a fresh anticipatory bail application before the trial court in view of the subsequent event that the competent authority refused to grant prosecution sanction against the main accused Patram Godara. The trial court has rejected the second anticipatory bail application of the petitioner solely on the ground that since the High Court has already dismissed the first anticipatory bail application, there is no ground to grant him benefit of anticipatory bail. 6. It is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner was not instrumental in settling the alleged deal between the complainant and the main accused Patram Godara. Learned Public Prosecutor is also not in a position to dispute the fact that the competent authority has refused to grant prosecution sanction to prosecute the main accused Patram Godara. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, this second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner-Rajendra Kumar S/o. Sh. Udairam in connection with FIR No. 153/2017 of Police Station C.P.S. Jaipur, he shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioners shall make himself/herself/themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.