Shri Paras Jain Son of Lat Shri Chandan Mal Jain Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:2001]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No.17/2026

¶4

In

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 21/2026

¶6

Paras Jain Son Of Late Shri Chandan Mal Jain, BusinessConsultant. Private Company/ Business Related To Esic And Epfo, Resident Of House No. B-49, Jai Jawan Colony -1, Road No. 6, Tonk Road, Jaipur. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Central Bureau Of Investigation, Through Its Public Prosecutor.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No.18/2026 In

¶13

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 22/2026

¶14

Rameshwar Prasad Meena Son Of Late Shri Hari Narayan Meena, Social Security Officer/ Inspector, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Resident Of Plot No.2, Shyam Vihar Colony, Pannadhay Circle Ke Paas, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur. At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur.

¶15

----Appellant

¶16

Versus

¶17

The Central Bureau Of Investigation, Through Special Pp.

¶18

----Respondent

¶19

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Aman Kumar
	Mr. Harendra Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Prashant Chaturvedi,SPP for CBI

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

¶21

Order

¶22

16/01/2026

¶23

The appellants have been convicted by the learned Special Judge (CBI) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I vide judgment dated 20.12.2025 in Special Criminal Case No.14/2015 for the offences under Section 120B of IPC, Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section

[2026:RJ-JP:2001]

[SOSA-17/2026]

(2 of 3)

13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced for four years Simple Imprisonment.

¶28

Being aggrieved the appellants have preferred these appeals. Pending disposal of the appeal, by way of present applications under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 the appellants seeks suspension of sentence and release on bail.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned trial court has erred in convicting the appellants without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. It is contended that the demand , which is sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further argued that mere recovery of tainted currency cannot be the basis of conviction in the absence of cogent and reliable proof of demand and acceptance . It is further submitted that the appellants remained in custody during investigation and trial for more than one month. He contended that the appellants were trapped for allegedly taking a bribe of ₹80,000/-. The sentence awarded is four years’ simple imprisonment, and appeals in such matters are not likely to be heard in the near future. Therefore, the applications for suspension of sentence deserves to be allowed.

¶30

Learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the applications for suspension of sentence and submitted that the trial court has convicted the appellants after proper appreciation of the evidence. It is further contended that looking to the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the applications for suspension of sentence are liable to be rejected.

[2026:RJ-JP:2001]

[SOSA-17/2026]

(3 of 3)

I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special Public Prosecutor on the applications for suspension of sentence and perused the material available on record.

¶35

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of these case, the grounds raised in the appeals, the short sentence of four years, the amount involved, the likelihood of the appeals not being decided in the near future, and the absence of any criminal antecedents against the appellants, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellants- Paras Jain Son Of Late Shri Chandan Mal Jain and Rameshwar Prasad Meena Son Of Late Shri Hari Narayan Meena.

¶36

It is, therefore, ordered that the sentence of the appellants shall remain suspended till disposal of the appeals and they shall be released on bail, provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court on 17.02.2026 and as and when called upon to do so.

¶37

The applications are accordingly disposed of.

¶38

(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶39

Arun/41-42

Shri Paras Jain Son of Lat Shri Chandan Mal Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Paras Jain Son of Lat Shri Chandan Mal Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrakala Pancholi W/O Shri Anil Kumar Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan

Guman Singh S/O Devi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Lal S/O Shri Hiralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmendra Kumar S/O Rameshwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ghanshyam @ Dhanna S/O Omprakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Kaif S/O Idris Khan Vs State of Rajasthan