UDAY BHANU MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these bail applications arise out of the same FIR, they are being decided by this common order.

(2.) These bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of FIR No.217/2016, registered at Principal Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec. 120B IPC.

(3.) Shri SS Hora, learned counsel for the accused-applicant Ram Karan Meena submits that the accused-applicant is in judicial custody since 19/07/2016 and charge-sheet has been filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau on 15/09/2016. It is argued by the counsel that no amount has been accepted by the accused-applicant and no recovery has been made from him despite there being a trap and therefore, the arrest of the accused-applicant is unlawful. It is further argued that the accused-applicant was presented before the Competent Court much after the stipulated time prescribed under Section 57 and 167 Cr.P.C. and the remand order was even without registration of the FIR. It is further contended that the Anti Corruption Bureau had forced Prafful Moreshwar Sontake to deliver Rs.10 lac to accused-applicant but the accused-applicant had refused to take the said amount. Counsel further contends that the entire case of the Anti Corruption Bureau is based upon the interception of mobile phone of co-accused Rishabh Sethi and Keshav Gupta and the said interception was in violation of Section 5(2) as well as Rule 4(1) of the Telegraph Act as well as Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules. Counsel further argued that the transcript recorded was in violation of Section 65B of the Evidence Act as no certificate as per the same provision was ever filed by the prosecution and therefore, the transcript is not admissible in evidence and cannot be used by the prosecution to establish a prima-facie case against the accused-petitioner. Counsel further argued that the transcriptions are not reflecting any fact pertaining to the accused-applicant and therefore, cannot be relied upon for making out a prima-facie case against the accusedapplicant and therefore, the accused-applicant deserves to be granted indulgence of bail. It is further argued that the offence was not constituted against the accused-applicant under Section 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 12(2) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nilesh Dinkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 4 SCC 143. Counsel also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010 CrLR 832 as well as a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2012 1 SCC 40.