SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments.

(2.) This third application for grant of bail has been filed by accused-petitioner Sushil Kumar Jain. Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for accused-petitioner, has argued that first bail application of petitioner was rejected on 27.04.2011, owing to pending investigation. Second bail application was rejected by this court on 05.07.2011. Learned counsel has heavily relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, Criminal Appeal No.2178/2011 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5650/2011), decided on 23.11.2011, and argued that in that case the Supreme Court has held that mere satisfaction of court concerned regarding prima facie case against an accused may not be the sole criteria for declining him/her bail pending trial especially when completion of trial is not in sight in near future and that there are no chances of the accused fleeing from justice or intimidating prosecution witnesses or otherwise tampering with evidence. It was argued that assertion that if the accused is released on bail, he might intimidate the prosecution witnesses or interfere with the trial or tamper with the evidence, cannot be accepted on mere ipse dixit of the prosecution. It should be substantiated by some material, which is not available in this case. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred to the FSL report to argue that on most of the documents no definite opinion has been given by the forensic science laboratory about the signatures and not proved of the accused-petitioner. Learned counsel argued that so far as offence under Section 409 of the IPC is concerned, that cannot be said to have been even prima facie made out against accused-petitioner because that offence is merely alleged against petitioner by co-accused Murari Lal Meena, the Assistant Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Sawaimadhopur. The other offence in the charge-sheet is under Section 467 IPC, which is also not made out against the petitioner because that pertains to the offence of forging a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon. Except these two offences referred to in the charge-sheet wherefor sentence of life imprisonment is provided, other offences carry maximum punishment of seven years, which are under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, which also was the quantum of sentence in the case even before the Supreme Court. The learned counsel argued that even otherwise gravity of offences against present accused-petitioner Sushil Kumar Jain cannot be placed at the same pedestal as that of the co-accused Chandra Shekhar Dixit, who, even as per prosecution evidence, pocketed most of the money, whom the police has not been able to arrest for last almost a year, whereas the petitioner is behind the bars since 22.02.2011 and that he is ready and willing to face the trial and would not in any manner misuse the liberty so granted by this court. It is, therefore, prayed that accused-petitioner be extended the benefit of bail. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and referred to various statements and documents to bring home the argument that there exists a prima-facie case not only against co-accused Chandra Shekhar and Murari Lal Meena but also against present accused-petitioner. Regarding report of the FSL, learned Additional Advocate General argued that in some part of the opinion it is against accused-petitioner but for rest of the documents, what has been said by the FSL is that more admitted genuine signatures of the accused petitioner for the contemporary period are required for further examination. Steps are being taken to further pursue the matter to get the additional report of the FSL. Learned Additional Advocate General argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra, supra, may not be applicable to the present case because different fact situation arose in that case than the present one. In order to bring home his point, learned Additional Advocate General referred to various statements of students as well as university officials and documents from the case diary and submitted that there existed a prima-facie case not only against co-accused Chandra Shekhar and Murari Lal Meena but also against accused-petitioner Upon considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and considering ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra, supra, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow this bail application. It is, therefore, ordered that accused-petitioner, namely, Sushil Kumar Jain Son of Shri Prakash Chand Jain, Resident of Boli Ka Bazar, Lalsot, District Dausa (presently confined in District Jail, Kota) be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in FIR No.221/2009, Police Station - Anti Corruption Bureau, Sawai Madhopur, for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so, and further that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other authority, and that he will not intimidate the prosecution witnesses or otherwise tamper with the evidence. The bail application stands disposed of.