Ram Karan Meena vs State Of Rajasthan Through P P

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan Through P.P. ----Respondent

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG for State. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI Order 04/07/2017

This second bail application has been moved on behalf of

accused-applicant in FIR No. 217/2016 registered at Police Station

Anti Corruption Bureau, Distt. Jaipur for the offences under section

7, 12, 13(1)(D), 13(2), 14 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

and Section 120-B IPC. The first bail application moved on behalf

of the present petitioner as well as by Uday Bhanu Maheshwari

and Subodh Kumar Jain, was rejected vide order dated

03.03.2017.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also

learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the

State.

Learned counsel appearing for the present accused petitioner (2 of 4) [CRLMB-7889/2017]

submits that on 03.03.2017, the bail application was rejected,

mainly on the ground that the investigation was under process

and two principal accused were yet to be arrested at that time.

Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused Uday Bhanu

Maheshwari, whose application was also rejected under order

dated 03.03.2017, preferred special leave to appeal before

Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Court observed in its order dated

05.06.2017 that the fact of investigation being carried out against

the other accused persons who were absconding is no ground to

refuse bail to the petitioner. It was further observed that the

apprehension of the State that the accused may influence the

witnesses, specially who were working under his subordination can

be dealt with by imposing certain conditions. Thus Hon'ble

Supreme Court granted bail to co-accused Uday Bhanu

Maheshwari while imposing certain conditions. Learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that in light of the observation made by

Hon'ble Apex Court there can be no impediment in allowing the

application of present petitioner Ram Karan Meena, more

particularly in view of the fact that no recovery was effected from

him despite there being a trap conducted qua him. No amount was

accepted by him and there was no reference of any demand of

bribe and handing over the money to the accused petitioner in the

transcriptions submitted along with charge sheet.

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has argued

that this case needs to be considered in wider prospective as the

infrastructure projects of PHED were being carried out by the out

sourced agency namely SPML Infra Limited Co. and the State (3 of 4) [CRLMB-7889/2017]

Officials including the present petitioner were extending benefits

to SPML by adopting corrupt practices by not imposing penalty on

them for lapses in executing the project, by unduly extending time

limits etc. Even if, no recovery of the bribed amount has been

effected, there are references in the transcript of other

advantages extended by SPML to the present petitioner e.g.

providing vehicle and the accommodation in the hotel etc.

Learned counsel appearing for accused petitioner submits

that the bail application is required to be considered only in the

perspective of the allegations made in the charge sheet for the

offences punishable under section 7/12, 13(D), 13(2), 14 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC.

This fact is also argued vehemently by learned counsel for

the petitioner that the decoys through whom the bribe money was

allegedly attempted to the handed over to the present petitioner

namely Prafful Moreshwar Sontake and Akashdeep Totla have also

been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on

31st May, 2017.

In the light of the rival contentions advanced at Bar, I have

perused the relevant record and also given thoughtful

consideration to the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in

order dated 05.06.2017, whereby bail was granted to co-accused

Uday Bhanu Maheshwari.

Without expressing anything on the merit of the case, while

taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of

the case as stated above, I am satisfied that the present petitioner

who is in custody since 19.07.2016 deserves to be enlarged on (4 of 4) [CRLMB-7889/2017]

bail. Hence, the second bail application is allowed and it is directed

that accused petitioner Ram Karan Meena shall be released on bail

under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with afore-mentioned FIR

provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.

1,00,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each

to the satisfaction of the trial court with further undertaking as

follows:-

(1) the petitioner will remain present in the trial court to face the

trial whenever called upon to do so.

(2) the petitioner shall surrender his passport in the concerned

Trial Court and will not leave the country without its permission.

(3) the petitioner shall produce his latest and complete

residential address before learned trial court and shall not change

his address without prior intimation to the trial court.

(4) the petitioner shall not meet and contact any of the

witnesses cited by the prosecution in connection with the FIR No.

217/2016

(5) in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned

hereinabove, the application for cancellation of bail of the present

petitioner shall be liable to be moved.

Accordingly, the second bail application is disposed off.

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI)J.

Manisha/-63