RAJENDRA MAMODIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS bail application under Section 439, CrPC has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Rajendra Mamodia who is facing trial along with others on the charges for the offences under Sections 120 -B, 167 and 409 IPC and Section 5 of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 and under Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Sessions Case No. 9/2002. It is alleged that the petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with Manish Dhar and Vimal Srivastava and in order to carry out this criminal conspiracy Manish Dhar, Data Entry Operator, who was entrusted with confidential draft budget press notes on 28.3.2001, took out copy of the same from the computer and handed over the same to accused petitioner. Next day co -accused Vimal Srivastava took these papers from the house of the petitioner and handed over the same to one M.L.A. who distributed these papers in assembly during budget speech on 29.3.2001.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that no offence under Sections 167 and 409/120 -B, IPC is made out against the petitioner who is not the Government servant and no property or valuable security was entrusted to him. The offence under the Indian Official Secrets Act is a bailable offence and the alleged facts disclose an offence under Section 72 of the Information Technology which is also bailable. It has also been contended that according to the statement of Govind Sharma PW -15 and the enquiry report of the then Principal Finance Secretary the papers shown in the assembly did not relate to the budget. He has also contended that the petitioner has been in custody for over 30 months and out of a list of 56 witnesses only 15 witnesses have been examined so far. Section 437(6) of CrPC provides that if the trial is not completed with in 60 days from the first date fixed for recording of the evidence, the accused shall be released on bail unless otherwise directed for reasons to be recorded. He has therefore urged that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has in reply submitted that the rule of party cannot be applied for rejecting the bail application of an accused person because while rejecting the bail application of co -accused persons the petitioner had no opportunity of being heard.