AJAY KUMAR SHARDA Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate -General for State and perused the material available on record.

(2.) THIS is second bail application on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that after rejection of first bail application, charges have been framed against him and no charges have been framed against him as regards to selection of Class -IV employee in Kishangarh and Vijaynagar and also as regards pre -arrest bail and purchase of Ovan or transfer of Class -IV employee after having gratification, hence in substantial portion, the case of the prosecution has been disbelieved. As regards selection and examination of LDCs, there is no direct evidence against the petitioner. Ganesh against whom allegation was that he took the money on the instructions of the petitioner has been discharged. The only evidence against the petitioner is of interception of phone which is not admissible in view of the law laid down in Smt. K.L.D. Nagasree Vs. Government of India & ors., : AIR 2007 AP 102 as no compliance has been made of the provisions of Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Act and further contention of the petitioner is that as per judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 4226/2012, Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & ors., decided on 18.9.2014, requirement under Section 65 -B of the Indian Evidence Act are not satisfied and certificate has not been obtained at the time of taking of the document, hence no incriminating evidence remains against the petitioner and further reliance has been placed on judgment passed in Ankur Chavla Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & ors., Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2455/2012 decided on 20.11.2014 by the High Court of Delhi in which due to non compliance of Section 65 -B of the Indian Evidence Act, the proceedings have been quashed and further reliance has been placed on Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, : (2012) 1 SCC 40 and contention of the petitioner is that when charges have been framed, there is a substantive change in the circumstances. The petitioner is behind the bars since long. Trial will take time. There are 400 witnesses and the learned trial Court is only calling two witnesses a day, hence the trial could not be completed soon, hence the petitioner be released on bail.

(3.) WITHOUT going into the merits of the case but looking to the above fact that earlier bail application has been rejected after considering merits of the case, thereafter it is true that on some of the counts, petitioner has been discharged but he has been charged for the allegations of misusing his power and position for selection and examination of LDCS. He was found involved in corrupt practices and as regards other allegations, he has also been charged. Apart from it, by the common order dated 7.8.2014 bail application of other co -accused Rajesh Sharma and Hemraj Kanawat has also been rejected and admittedly, their bail application has been rejected by the Apex Court also and when the Apex Court had discarded all the arguments raised by the petitioner, there is no occasion for this Court to frame another opinion, hence in view of the above, it is not a fit case to release the petitioner on bail.