Allowed

Arun Kumar S/O Devendra Kumar Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Sept 2024CRLMB/11743/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second bail application under B.N.S.S. Section 483 arising from a corruption charge, the High Court allowed bail. The court granted relief primarily due to the absence of prosecution sanction, noting that the trial cannot proceed without it.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

Arun Kumar S/O Devendra Kumar Jat Vs State of Rajasthan — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:40825]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 11743/2024 Arun Kumar S/o Devendra Kumar Jat, R/o Bhadarpur, P.s. Parikshitgarh, District Meerut (U.P.) The Then Fire Extinguishing Officer, Fire Extinguishing Office, Nagar Nigam, Bharatpur At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Bharatpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg with Mr. Varun Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aarti Sharma, Public Prosecutor

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order

¶10

25/09/2024

¶11

This second bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.147/2024, registered with the Police Station C.P.S. Jaipur, ACB District for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short ‘the P.C. Act’).

¶12

The first bail application ( S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9993/2024 ) filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn vide order dated 22.08.2024 with liberty to file fresh after completion of investigation.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case based on a false and fabricated story. Counsel further submits that there is no cogent evidence in regard to acceptance of bribe by the petitioner. Counsel further submits that no prosecution sanction has been accorded as

[2024:RJ-JP:40825]

[CRLMB-11743/2024]

(2 of 3)

regards the petitioner and therefore, the trial of the case will take time and it will resume only upon the grant of prosecution sanction. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.07.2024 and there are no chances of him absconding as he is a Government servant, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the bail application and submits that the petitioner was found taking bribe, therefore, he does not deserve any liberty from this Court.

¶19

Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the challan papers.

¶20

It is not disputed that no prosecution sanction has been accorded by the competent authority as regards the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence.

¶21

Section 19 of the P.C. Act clearly speaks that no Court shall take cognizance of offence until and unless prosecution sanction is accorded by the competent authority. 8. In view of Section 19 of the P.C. Act, when there is no prosecution sanction accorded by the competent authority to prosecute the petitioner, the Court concerned cannot proceed a step ahead.

¶22

Taking into consideration the allegations levelled against the petitioner so also the fact that no prosecution sanction has been accorded so far as to prosecute the petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

[2024:RJ-JP:40825]

[CRLMB-11743/2024]

(3 of 3)

Accordingly, this second bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before the trial Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶27

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶28

Satyendra/52

Arun Kumar S/O Devendra Kumar Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar S/O Devendra Kumar Jat 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Verma S/O Shri Gopal Verma Vs State of Rajasthan

Pinki D/O Radheyshyam W/O Bablu Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Verma S/O Shri Gopal Verma Vs State of Rajasthan

Sharukh @ Bitkaya S/O Ballu @ Abdul Vs State of Rajasthan

Sher Singh @ Ratan Singh S/O Battu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Puroshottam Yogi @ Monu S/O Suresh Kumar Yogi Vs State of Rajasthan