Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for offences of corruption and cheating. Court rejected plea due to seriousness of allegations involving financial loss, noting co-accused had mixed record.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioner denied relief.
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 Bail No. 8080/2018
Bheru Ram Jat S/o Shri Maliram B/c Jat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Dhani Shyam Singh Wali, Post Mau, Tehsil Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Jaipur
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, P.P. For Complainant : Mr. Hari Kishan Saini
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
21/08/2018
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 199/2011 registered at Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, Sikar for offences under Sections 13 (1) (D), 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that occurrence in the present case had allegedly taken place in the year 2006, whereas, FIR was registered in the year 2011. Till date, no effort was made to join the petitioner in the investigation of the case. Petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. Coaccused have been granted regular bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-8080/2018]
Learned State Counsel on the other hand has opposed the
petition and has submitted that the petitioner was working as a contractor. Petitioner was required to supply six kilograms Pressure P.V.C. Pipes, whereas, petitioner had supplied four kilograms Pressure Pipes. At the time of acceptance of tender furnished by the petitioner, all the accused in connivance with each other had forged the record to show that apart from the petitioner two other contractors had also furnished tenders, whereas, only petitioner had furnished the tender and the same was accepted. Moreover, petitioner was an authorized contractor for Public Works Department and not for Public Health and Engineering Department. As a result, State has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 14,50,000/-.
Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioner, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to him is made out. So far as the co-accused are concerned, they were granted regular bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Anticipatory bail petition filed by co-accused Nehru Lal was dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.10.2013.
Dismissed.
Sudha/32
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in proceedings for alleged corruption and cheating.
Whether the delay between occurrence and FIR registration warrants grant of bail despite seriousness of allegations.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Bheru Ram Jat
State Of Rajasthan
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
