Dismissed

Suresh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Richpal Sharma B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Sept 2020CRLMB/3340/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, a former Chairman of a Nagar Palika, sought anticipatory bail in a corruption case involving irregular issuance of Pattas. The Court held that the petitioner misused official capacity and, considering the gravity of the offence, dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Suresh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Richpal Sharma B/C Brahmin Vs… — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3340/2020

¶3

Suresh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Richpal Sharma, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Ward No 10 Surajgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu The Then Chairman Nagar Palika Surajgarh Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP., Mr. Anand Swami, Addl. SP, A.C.B., Churu.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶10

Order

¶11

Order reserved on : 10/09/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 15/09/2020

¶12

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.310/2017 registered at Police Station OP ACB Jhunjhunu, Head Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for the offence under Section 13(1)(D) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986 and Sections 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is wrongly implicated in this case due to political rivalry. Petitioner is Ex Chairman of the Nagar Palika. Petitioner had not misused the office in issuing the Patta. Audit report is not against the petitioner. Petitioner had acted bonafidely on the report of the clerk. Clerk has calculated the valuation of the Patta, so petitioner is not responsible for it. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit the deficit amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner. So, petitioner be enlarged on bail

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., in Criminal Appeal No.227/2018 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.151 of 2018), decided on 06.02.2018. He also placed reliance the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No.2277/2018), decided on 23.02.2018.

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the anticipatory bail application. 5. Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was Chairman of the Nagar Palika upto 21.08.2015. He had issued the Patta No.371 in the name of Parmeshwari Devi on deficit amount of Rs.10,711/-. The said Patta was issued on 24.08.2015. At that time, new Chairman Surendra Kumar was appointed. So, petitioner had no right to issue the Patta in the capacity of Chairman. He had also issued the Patta No.373 in the name of Bishamber Dayal in which no date was mentioned and amount was shown Rs.65,000/- but there was deficit of amount Rs.10,711/-. Petitioner also issued the Patta No.380 in the name of Girdhari Lal Mourya on 28.08.2015, at that time petitioner was not Chairman. Petitioner also issued the Patta in the name of Nandlal dated 24.08.2015 and at that time, petitioner was not Chairman. Petitioner also issued the Patta No.371 in the name of Parmeshwari Devi W/o Nandlal. As per the circular dated

¶18

(3 of 3)

¶19

27.04.1978, she was not entitled for getting of Patta because her husband Nandlal was issued Patta previously. Petitioner had misused his official capacity. So, looking to the gravity of offence, I am not inclined to allow the anticipatory bail application. 5. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

¶20

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶21

Seema/12

Suresh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Richpal Sharma B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Richpal Sharma B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranglal S/O Onkar B/C Meena Vs Union of India Central Narcotics Bureau

Yogesh@Binnu S/O Rajendra Sharma B/C Brahman Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukhtyar Singh S/O Nawal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shakir Khan S/O Shakur Shah Vs State of Rajasthan

Girdhari Lal Mourya S/O Late Shri Bhuraram B/C Raigar Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Kumar Chetiwal S/O Shri Mahendra Kumar Khateek Vs State of Rajasthan