PRADEEP SINGH CHUNDAWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On being arrested in connection with FIR No.269/2014 of Police Station ACB, Jodhpur for offences under Section 13 (1)(c) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 467, 468, 471, 477A, 420, 119, 201 and 120B IPC accused-petitioner has filed this post-arrest bail application. Earlier petitioner applied for bail before the Special Court of Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court') but that effort proved abortive and the learned trial Court rejected his bail application on 23rd of January 2017.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not a member of Scrutiny Committee and his status in the Selection Committee was of Second Subject Expert, therefore, prima facie his culpability for the aforesaid offences is seriously questionable. Learned counsel would contend that Mr. S.P. Gupta, who was initially named as an accused in the FIR, has falsely implicated petitioner in the case inasmuch as he himself was a Member of the Selection Committee as Professor and Head of the Sociology Department. Learned counsel further submits that a bare reading of FIR makes it abundantly clear that no specific role is assigned to the petitioner in commission of any offence. It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel that main accused Vice Chancellor has been released on bail by the Supreme Court and five other accused persons have been released by this Court, is a significant fact for releasing the petitioner on bail who is in custody since 21.01.2017.

(3.) Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that prima facie culpability of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences is clearly apparent inasmuch he was responsible for selection of two ineligible candidates viz., Rajendra Singh Khinchi and Rishab Gehlot. Learned Addl. Advocate General further submits that in presence of the petitioner a Select-list was torn out by other accused persons but he kept mum, is sufficient to establish role of the petitioner in criminal delinquency of grave and serious nature. While relying on the statement of Professor S.P. Gupta under Section 164 Cr.P.C., learned Addl. Advocate General submits that statements are clear and unequivocal to establish direct and explicit nexus of the petitioner with the attributed offences. Lastly, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that further investigation against petitioner is still in vogue under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., therefore, at this stage, he is not entitled for bail.