RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No.153/2017 of Police Station C.P.S. Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from bare reading of the FIR, it is clear that the petitioner was not a party to the alleged conversation took place between the complainant and 'kanungo' - Patram Godara, who allegedly demanded bribe for him. It is further submitted that in the FIR, the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is to the effect that when the complainant offered bribe money to the 'kanungo' Patram Godara, he refused to take the same and asked the complainant to give the said money to the petitioner. It is submitted that even in the FIR, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner, who is practicing as an Advocate was not interested in settling the deal between the complainant and Patram Godara. Learned counsel has submitted that the trap made by the ACB was failed and the main accused Patram Godara was not caught by the ACB while taking the bribe. It is further submitted that after thorough investigation, the police proposed to file charge- sheet against the main accused Patram Godara but the competent authority did not grant prosecution sanction to prosecute him, therefore, it appears that no charge-sheet has been filed against the 'kanungo' Patram Godara. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the person, who allegedly demanded and received bribe from the complainant has not been prosecuted, no case against the petitioner is made out and, therefore, he is entitled to be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this anticipatory bail application and submitted that this is second anticipatory bail application of the petitioner before this Court and the same is not maintainable.