RAJENDRA MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 171(E) and 120(B) I.P.C.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was neither a candidate for the Rajya Sabha nor he was canvassing for any candidate and no material has been brought forward in course of investigation showing the complicity of this petitioner in the alleged crime; that the only allegation is that Badal Chandra Mandal, driver of Sita Soren had delivered the air bag to this petitioner. It is further submitted that it is not stated as to what incriminating article was in the air bag as the driver in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that it is presumed that there was money in the said bag and the statement of other witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is in contradiction to each other. It is also submitted that even if, for the sake of argument, it is presumed that the bag containing money was received by this petitioner then the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not attracted against this petitioner as he is not a public servant and there is no allegation that the petitioner had ever received illegal gratification for himself or for any other person; that merely because the petitioner made calls to the M.L.A. it cannot be made basis for the prosecution; that Pawan Kumar Dhoot who had allegedly offered money to the M.L.A's for securing vote has been charge -sheeted under the bailable sections whereas the petitioner who has no concern with transaction of money has been charge -sheeted for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act which is not made out.

(3.) CONSIDERING the statement of the witnesses it is evident that the petitioner was a close confidant of co -accused, Sita Soren, one of the M.L.A's to whom money was paid for casting vote in favour of the independent candidate and part of the money so realised was handed over to this petitioner which shows that he had received money on behalf of public servant. Thus, looking to the gravity of the offence I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. He is directed to surrender in the court below within a period of one week from the date of this order.