In this criminal miscellaneous bail petition, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the petitioner's application for bail under Section 439 CrPC. The Court held that the prosecution case was well-supported by examined witnesses, rendering the severity of allegations sufficient to deny bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Vth Bail No. 2463 / 2018
Banwari Lal Yadav S/o Late Shri Birdha Ram Yadav, R/o House No. 310, Shri Gopal Nagar, Gopal Pura by Pass, Jaipur. the Then Additional Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Alwar. (at Present Lodged in Central Jail, Alwar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Gurjar-P.P.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment
23/02/2018
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 34/2017 registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, A.C.B., Jaipur, Chowki Alwar, for offences under Sections 7, 13(1) (d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 384 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Heard.
Bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2017 and following order was passed by this Court:-
“Petitioner has filed this 2nd petition under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.34/2017 registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, A.C.B.,
(2 of 3)
[CRLMB-2463/2018]
Jaipur, Chowki-Alwar for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 384 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-II at the time of the alleged trap. As per the prosecution case, petitioner had raised a demand of Rupees seven lacs from the complainant. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, trap was organized by the Anti Corruption Bureau. At the time of raid, Rupees fifty thousand in cash were recovered lying under a cushion in the office of the petitioner. Two blank cheques in the sum of Rupees three and a half lacs and Rupees three lacs were recovered from the drawer of the table of the petitioner. Petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. In-fact, no official work of the complainant was pending with the petitioner. Complainant was dealing in cash with Amar Singh. It is the case of the prosecution, that petitioner was extorting money from the complainant by threatening him. Petitioner is in custody since 16.2.2017. Challan has already been presented in the court and petitioner is not required for further investigation.
Learned state counsel has opposed the petition and has submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner was serious in nature. There was recording of the conversation between the complainant and the petitioner with regard to demand of Rupees seven lacs and further it had been told by the petitioner that the complainant should bring two blank cheques in the sum of Rupees three and a half lacs and Rupees three lacs each. Offence under Section 384 Indian Penal Code, 1860 has already been added.
Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, no ground for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out. Dismissed.”
(3 of 3)
[CRLMB-2463/2018]
Now, witnesses Dhanpat (complainant), Salem Mohammad (Raid Officer) and Mahinder Yadav (Recovery witness) have been examined, during trial. Two more witnesses have also been examined, during trial. Said witnesses have duly supported the prosecution case, during trial. Hence, no ground for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
Sudha/39
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner already held in custody for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
Whether the seriousness of the allegations and the existence of prosecution witnesses preclude the grant of bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Banwari Lal Yadav
State of Rajasthan
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
