Ram Karan Meena vs State Of Rajasthan Through P P

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail No. 7889 / 2017 Ram Karan Meena Son of Shri Mangu Lal Meena, Aged About 50 Years, R/o House No.74, Puranbari, Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. (presently Confined in Central Jail Jaipur)

----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