MANNO RAM MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application has been filed by the petitioner-accused seeking anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C apprehending his arrest in respect of the FIR registered as No.348 of 2012, with the Police Station-Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur (for short "ACB ") for the offences under sections 7 and 13 (1)(D)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120-B of IPC.

(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel Mr.Mahendra Gaur for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Deputy Superintendent of Police and is being falsely implicated in the case initiated at the instance of the complainants Shri Gokul Ram Sharma and Shri Kundan Lal Sharma who themselves are accused in other case. According to him, a trap was laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau on the basis of allegation made in the said complaint, at the residence of the co-accused Ramji Lal Sharma who was a lawyer at Kathumar on 29.8.2012,and on the basis of the statement of co-accused, the petitioner is being falsely implicated. Referring to the allegations in the FIR, Mr. Gaur submitted that initial allegations were against the Reader Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, and that the said lawyer Shri Ramjilal Sharma was never in picture. He further submitted that entire story put fourth by the Investigating Officer is not believable, and that because of the internal rivalry in the Police department, the petitioner is being involved. According to Mr. Gaur, the alleged conversations between the complainant, co-accused and the present petitioner could not be relied upon by I.O. at this juncture, and as per the provisions contained in the ACB Manual also, the arrest could be made only when it is necessary in the interest of investigation and to prevent the accused from absconding. He further submitted that proceedings initiated under section 82 of Cr.P.C before the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption, Alwar were illegal, and that subsequent proceedings under section 83 of Cr.P.C have already been challenged by the petitioner before this court by filing appropriate proceedings. When the petitioner is taking recourse to his legal remedies, it could not be said that the petitioner is avoiding his arrest. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 694, he submitted that it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Lastly, Mr. Gaur has submitted that the co-accused Mr. Rajendra Tiwari and Ramji Lal Sharma have also been enlarged on regular bail by this court, and therefore, the present petition be gratned.

(3.) IN the instant case, it appears that the present petitioner was the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Laxmangarh when the complaint was lodged by the complainants Gukul Ram Sharma and Kundan Lal Sharma. The allegations were made interalia that Mr. Tiwari who was the reader of the present petitioner had made demand of Rs. 1 lakh for being paid to the petitioner for dropping some of the charges against the complainants, who were accused in some other case. In the complaint, specific allegations have been made against the petitioner along with the co-accused Mr. Rajendra Tiwari as regards the demand of illegal gratification. It appears that after the registration of the FIR, some telephonic conversations had allegedly taken place amongst the complainants, the present petitioner and also the other accused Ramji Lal, who happened to be a lawyer, on different dates like 20th, 22nd, 25th and 29th of August,2012. The learned Public Prosecutor, during the course of her arguments, had submitted to the court the papers of investigation including the transcriptions of the said conversation recorded, and also the Panchnamas prepared for the identification of the voice of the present petitioner. At this juncture, it would not be appropriate to deal with the evidence collected by the I.O. However, suffice is to say that there appears to be prima facie involvement of the petitioner/ accused in the alleged offence.