Rajasthan High Court
Sonu Kumar Bhati S/O Shri Rampal vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 December, 2022
Bench: Chandra Kumar Songara
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15922/2022
Sonu Kumar Bhati S/o Shri Rampal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Gram Ranauli Latifpur P.s. Jarcha District Gautambudh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh Current Sub Inspector, Police Station Goverdhan
Current District Vrindavan Mathura, Uttar Pradesh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ( Acb)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Rathore, GA-cum-AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA
Order
07/12/2022
This anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section
438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 150/2021 registered at
Choki Anti Corruption Bureau, District Dholpur for the offences
under Sections 7 & 7-A of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment)
Act of 2018 and Section 120-B of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said
money mentioned by the complainant in the FIR was recovered
from a private person and not from the petitioner. Counsel further
submits that the present case is filed against the petitioner out of
personal vendetta as the petitioner has filed a case against the
complainant's family members under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
332, 353 & 504 of IPC bearing FIR No.375/2020 at Police Station
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-15922/2022]
Goverdhan, District Mathura. Hence, the anticipatory bail
application of the accused-petitioner may be granted.
During the course of argument, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the order of co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in S.B. CRLMB No.6776/2021 titled as Amit Kumar &
Anr. V/s State of Rajasthan decided on 10.06.2021.
Learned Government Advocate has opposed the bail
application and submitted the factual report which is taken on
record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record and also judgment cited by learned
counsel for the petitioner.
As per factual report, accused-petitioner has asked for bribe
amount of 1,50,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- has been received
by him through the agent and demanded the remaining amount of
Rs. 1,40,000/-. A trap has been set up in the presence of
independent witnesses on 12.05.2021 following the demand of the
accused.
Factual report further reveals that upon receiving information
that the bribe amount of Rs.1,40,000/- has been deposited in the
P.S. Goverdhan, Distt. Mathura (U.P.), Sh. Ravindra Babu, Sr. S.I,
SHO, P.S. Goverdhan, Distt. Mathura (UP) reached the Police
Station on 14.05.2021 and presented the bribe amount i.e. 70
notes of 2000 denomination amounting to total of Rs. 1,40,000/-.
The independent witness and Sh. Ravindra Babu, SSI, SHO, PS
Goverdharn matched it with the amount offered and seized notes
prepared in the trap which was conducted on 12.05.2021 and
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-15922/2022]
notes were found to be exactly similar to those which were
prepared at Circuit House, Bharatpur for trap proceedings with
visible phenolphthalin powder and sodium carbonate powder,
which were kept in a bag of white cloth wrapped in a newspaper
and seized by ACB after getting it signed with the relevant people
due to this amount being the evidence of trap proceedings.
It has also been mentioned in the factual report that the
prosecution sanction has been granted against the petitioner in
the offences under Sections 7 & 7-A of Prevention of Corruption
(Amendment) Act of 2018 and Section 120-B of IPC.
Therefore, looking to the facts & circumstances of the case
and gravity of the offence but without expressing any opinion on
the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it not proper to
enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J
PAYAL/43
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
