Dismissed

Nawalkishor Meena @ N.K. Meena S/O Shri Sharawanlal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Mar 2024CRLMB/300/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail applications of an ED officer and a friend accused of demanding bribe were rejected. The court held that missing prosecution sanction for four months does not automatically entitle accused to bail in economic offences, noting the serious nature of the crime and catch-red-handed recovery.

What did the court decide?

None granted; liberty to renew prayer for bail if no sanction issued within four months.

Nawalkishor Meena @ N.K. Meena S/O Shri Sharawanlal Vs State of… — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:11313]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15365/2023

¶4

Babulal Meena S/o Shri Govind Ram Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Vimalpura, Police Station Tunga, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). (Presently Confined In Jail At Alwar)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Ravindra Kumar S/o Mahaveer Singh, R/o Village Nawada Fatehpur, Police Station Khedki, District Gurugram (Haryana)

¶9

Naveen Kumar S/o Niranjan Kumar, R/o House No. 8, Sector No. 82, Police Station Khedki, District Gurugram (Haryana)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 300/2024 Nawalkishor Meena @ N.k. Meena S/o Shri Sharawanlal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Gram Thali Police Thana Aandhi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Presently Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta & Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Rathore, GA cum AAG with Mr. Kartikwardhan Singh Rathore Mr. Vinod Yadav

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

[2024:RJ-JP:11313]

[CRLMB-15365/2023]

(2 of 10)

05/03/2024

Reportable

Since both applications are arising out of the same FIR, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties arguments have been heard together and both these applications are being decided by this common order.

¶26

These bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners in connection with FIR No.288/2023 registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, District Jaipur wherein they are charged for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’).

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that during the course of investigation a recovery of Rs.15 lakh has been effected at the instance of the accused Babulal Meena and both Babulal Meena as well as the other accused Nawalkishore Meena were arrested on 02.11.2023. Counsel submit that after their arrest, the investigation was completed and chargesheet has been submitted, but inspite of passing of more than four months, till date no sanction has been granted by the department to prosecute the petitioners. Counsel submit that unless and until sanction is granted against the petitioners, they cannot be prosecuted in terms of the mandate contained under the Act of 2018. Counsel submit that the maximum punishment for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 7A of the Act of 2018 is seven years. Counsel submit that under these

[2024:RJ-JP:11313]

[CRLMB-15365/2023]

(3 of 10)

circumstances, indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner. In support of their contentions they have placed reliance upon the following orders passed by different Coordinate Benches of this Court:

¶32

Indra Singh Rao vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No.6527/2021) decided on 13.08.2021. 2. Sugam Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10015/2021) decided on 24.06.2021. 3. Sanjay Kumar Garg vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No.3123/2021) decided on 25.02.2021.

¶33

Yashodanandan Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No.1599/2021) decided on 15.02.2021.

¶34

Ajay Kumar Garg vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7037/2020) decided on 15.10.2020.

¶35

Devkinandan Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4280/2020) decided on 03.06.2020.

¶36

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the complainant opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that demand of Rs.21 lakh was made by the petitioner Nawalkishore Meena who is an officer of Enforcement Directorate, thereafter huge recovery of Rs.15 lakh has been effected from the possession of his friend co-accused Babulal Meena. Counsel submits that both these accused were in connivance with each other. Counsel further submits that an officer of Enforcement Directorate was not supposed

[2024:RJ-JP:11313]

[CRLMB-15365/2023]

(4 of 10)

to involve himself in such kind of activities, hence under these circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to get indulgence of bail. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed the Madras High Court in the case of Ankit Tiwari vs. The Inspector of Police,

¶41

Vigilence and Anti-Corruption, Dindigul District (CRL OP (MD) No.22586/2023) decided on 20.12.2023. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made herein above, the applications filed by the petitioners are liable to be rejected.

¶42

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the documents annexed with the bail applications indicate that a demand of Rs.21 lakh was made by the petitioner Nawalkishore Meena from the complainant, who happens to be an officer of Enforcement Directorate. The contents of the complaint further indicate that the matter was settled for a sum of Rs.17 lakh and in furtherance of the said demand, recovery of Rs.15 lakh has been effected from the possession of the petitioner Babulal Meena. Babulal Meena has been caught red handed when the trap proceedings were conducted by the Investigating Agency. This fact is not in dispute that both petitioners were arrested on 02.11.2023 and after investigation they have been chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 7A of the Act of 2018. This fact is also not in dispute that after their arrest, more than four months have passed and till date no prosecution sanction has been

[2024:RJ-JP:11313]

[CRLMB-15365/2023]

(5 of 10)

issued by the department. I find, no substance in the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner that in case sanction is not granted for a considerable time by the department, then indulgence of bail should be granted to the petitioners. The orders relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners reflected that in all those matters, the period of custody was more than eight months and considering that aspect of the matter, the indulgence of bail was granted to the those persons, but here in the instant case, the period of custody of the petitioner is hardly four months and till date the department has not taken any decision with regard to grant or not grant of sanction against the petitioner.

¶47

The offence allegedly committed by the petitioner Nawalkishore pertains to misuse of his official status and position while functioning as an officer of Enforcement Directorate. A close and careful perusal of the material available in the file indicates that demand of bribe of Rs.17,00,000/- was raised by the petitioner Nawalkishore and the bribe money of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid and recovered from his friend Babulal and after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against them for the offences under Section 7 and 7A of the Act of 1988.

¶48

A calculated crime has been committed by the petitioners with deliberate desire for personal profit. Such an act of the petitioners amount to an offence of whitecollar crime. Hon’ble Apex Court has taken such offences seriously. The petitioners cannot take the benefit of the

[2024:RJ-JP:11313]

[CRLMB-15365/2023]

(6 of 10)

situation that no prosecution sanction has been issued till date even after passing of four months since their arrest. There cannot be straight jacket formula to decide the bail application in favour of the accused. Every bail application is required to be decided on its own facts and merits of the case. Every case has different facts, allegations and while deciding the bail application, the Court has to keep the nature of allegations and evidence in mind and then decide the bail application accordingly. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad vs CBI reported in 2013 (7) SCC 466 has held in para 24 as under:

¶53

“24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

¶54

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal reported in 1987

[2024:RJ-JP:11313]

[CRLMB-15365/2023]

(7 of 10)

(2) SCC 364 has held that a murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused but an economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit and without considering the damage it causes to the national economy and interest. It has been held in para 5 as under:

¶59

“5. The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view whitecollar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest”.

¶60

In State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch Mumbail vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar reported in 2012 (12) SCC 384, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that corruption is violation of human right and observed as under:

¶61

“Corruption is not only a punishable offence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights’ violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes”.

[2024:RJ-JP:11313]

[CRLMB-15365/2023]

(8 of 10)

Further, in the matter of Nimmagadda Prasad (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that economic offence is a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and observed as under:

¶66

Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole.

¶67

Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country".

¶68

In the matter of Subramanian Swamy vs. C.B.I. reported in 2014 (8) SCC 682 , the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) while declaring Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, observed as under:-

¶69

"Corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the PC Act, 1988. It is difficult to justify the classification which has been made in Section 6-A because the goal of law in the PC Act, 1988 is to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand and all public servants are warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequence."

(9 of 10)

[2024:RJ-JP:11313]

[CRLMB-15365/2023]

And again,

"Corruption is an enemy of nation and tracking down corrupt public servant, howsoever high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the PC Act, 1988. The status or position of public servant does not qualify such public servant from exemption from equal treatment. The decision making power does not segregate corrupt officers into two classes as they are common crimedoers and have to be tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation."

¶75

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and nature and gravity of offence and keeping in mind the binding observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in cases of Balkrishna Dattray (supra) that economic offences are grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and serious repercussions on the development of the country and in view of the fact that corruption is really a human rights violation specially right to life liberty, equality and non discrimination and it is an economic obstacles to the realization of all human rights, I am of the considered opinion, prima facie, that it is not a fit case where the applicants can be released on bail.

¶76

In view of the reasons stated above, both applications are liable to be rejected and are hereby rejected.

¶77

However, the petitioners would be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail, in case no sanction is issued by the department within a period of four months from today.

[2024:RJ-JP:11313]

[CRLMB-15365/2023]

(10 of 10)

Before parting with the order, it is made clear that whatever observations have been made by this Court, are made only for the purpose of deciding these bail applications. The trial Court is directed to decide the matter on the merits of the case on the basis of evidence produced on the record without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. The trial Court is expected to expedite the trial.

¶82

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶83

KuD/43-44

Nawalkishor Meena @ N.K. Meena S/O Shri Sharawanlal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawalkishor Meena @ N.K. Meena S/O Shri Sharawanlal 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

Jorawar Singh Malawat S/O Kamlesh Malawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishankant S/O Banshilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohd. Khalid S/O Late Shri Mohd. Abid Vs State of Rajasthan

Hariram Gurjer S/O Harinarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Mamta Devi W/O Lt. Shriya Nath @ Sariya Jogi Vs State of Rajasthan

Bachchu Singh S/O Ramjilal Vs State of Rajasthan