Virendra Kumar vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 3160 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 4th Bail Application No. 1828/2022

Virendra Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Narayan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Village Bobasar Charnan, Teh. Sujangarh, Dist. Churu (Raj.).

(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner).

                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Shiven Gupta
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

                                    Order

02/03/2022

The present fourth bail application has been filed under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial

custody in connection with F.I.R. No.135/2021, Police Station

Centre Main Office Jaipur Chowki, District Churu, registered for the

offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 2018.

Heard and considered arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused

the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that statements of

decoy as well as both the independent witnesses have been

recorded before the learned trial Court; the permission for

construction is issued by the concerned Sarpanch and not by the

(2 of 5) [CRLMB-1828/2022]

petitioner; bribe money has not been recovered from the physical

possession of the petitioner; bribe money has been recovered

from the dash board of the car of the petitioner; charge-sheet has

been filed; and trial will take time. With these submissions,

learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail

may be granted to the petitioner.

Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has fervently and

vehemently opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner

and stated that now, the fourth bail application has been filed

without any change in the circumstances of the present case and

since the accused-petitioner was previously convicted in two other

cases of identical nature; accused-petitioner is a Village

Development Officer of the Gram Panchayat and he has the power

to issue Patta and power to grant permission for the construction,

therefore, the benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-

petitioner.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the

order passed upon third bail application was challenged by the

accused-petitioner before the Apex Court by Special Leave to

Appeal and following order dated 24.01.2022 was passed in that

matter, "Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, after arguing

the matter for some time, seeks leave to withdraw this petition

with liberty to file a fresh petition before the High Court since,

according to the learned senior counsel, the earlier petition was

withdrawn without instruction."

Learned counsel also submitted following judgments/orders

in support of his arguments:

(3 of 5) [CRLMB-1828/2022]

(1) Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. in

(2012) 2 SCC 382.

(2) Khartharam Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan in 2017(3) RLW2577.

(3) State of Rajasthan, Jaipur Vs. Balchand in AIR 1977 SC

2447.

The first bail application was rejected vide order dated

22.06.2021 after hearing both the sides on merits and on the

ground that earlier accused-petitioner was convicted in two cases

of identical nature but liberty was granted to file a fresh bail

application after recording of the statements of decoy as well as

independent witnesses. Thereafter, the second bail application was

rejected as being premature, vide order dated 18.11.2021

because the condition imposed at the time of rejection of the first

bail application was not fulfilled. Thereafter, the third bail

application was dismissed as not pressed after hearing both the

sides with a direction issued that "The concerned trial Court is

directed to expedite the trial of the case and record the

statements of the remaining witnesses as early as

possible", vide order dated 14.12.2021.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case,

particularly looking to the facts that charge-sheet has been filed

before passing of the order of the first bail application on

15.06.2021; before rejection of second bail application,

statements of PW.1 Rakesh Kumar, one of the independent

witnesses, PW.2 Bhagirath, i.e., decoy, PW.3 Shrawan Kumar have

been recorded before the learned trial Court. The statement of

PW.4 Sunil Kumar has been recorded on 30.11.2021 after filing of

the second bail application, statement of PW.5 Girdhari Lal has

(4 of 5) [CRLMB-1828/2022]

been recorded on 15.12.2021, PW.6 Rakesh Kumar has been

recorded on 24.12.2021 and PW.7 Savita has been recorded on

07.01.2022 after rejection of third bail application; none of the

witnesses turned hostile and even PW.1 Rakesh Kumar and PW.4

Sunil Kumar have also supported the story of prosecution and did

not turn hostile; the accused-petitioner was caught red handed on

the spot and money was recovered from the dash board of the car

of the accused-petitioner. The third bail application was dismissed

as not pressed after hearing arguments of both the sides and

thereafter, statement of independent witnesses, i.e., PW.5, PW.6

and PW.7 have been recorded before the learned trial Court and

none of the witness turned hostile; PW.1 and PW.4 have supported

the story of prosecution; even, as per decoy, PW.2 Bhagirath,

bribe money was demanded by the accused-petitioner; pre-

demand of the bribe money was verified through recording;

thereafter, during proceeding, bribe money was handed over to

the accused-petitioner and the same was put into the dash board

of the car of the accused-petitioner. On the contrary, the

proceeding was organised by the decoy as well as independent

witnesses.

Upon perusal of the judgments/orders cited by learned

counsel for the petitioner, it reveals that facts and circumstances

of these cases are different from the present case. The facts laid

down in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P.

(supra), during period of one year, only statements of two

witnesses have been recorded. In the case of Khartharam Jat

(supra), injuries are simple in nature, petitioner is under

incarceration for a long time and the bail has declined only on the

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-1828/2022]

basis of pendency of thirteen cases against the petitioner whereas,

in nine cases either he is acquitted or discharged. In the case of

State of Rajasthan, Jaipur (supra), petitioner is a young man of 27

years and while he being on bail throughout in the trial court, he

has not abused the trust placed in him by the court whereas, as

per the matter in hand, the case of prosecution is prima facie

proved by the decoy as well as independent witnesses and other

witnesses; there is no witness who does not support the story of

prosecution and turned hostile; the accused-petitioner was

previously convicted in two other cases of identical nature; and a

direction was already issued by this Court to the trial Court to to

record the statements of all main witnesses and expedite the trial

of the case and the same has been followed by the trial court,

therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to

the accused-petitioner.

Accordingly, the fourth application preferred by the accused-

petitioner, Virendra Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Narayan, under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J 73-Rashi/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)