- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This bail application has been filed against the order dated 8.2.2010 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur in FIR No. RC-AC3 2009-A- 0001 CBI ACU-III for the offences under Sections 120-B, 384 IPC and Section 13(1)(D)(2), 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A report came to be lodged by Ramesh Chandra Sharma before the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur which after preliminary enquiry came to be registered as FIR No. 62/09 on 24.3.2009. Thereafter the Anti Corruption Bureau concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet against Mahesh Kumar and Inder Singh on 20.5.2009 and kept the investigation pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in respect of other persons. When Bail Applications of Mahesh "Kumar (No. 2916/09) and of Inder Singh (2812/09) came to be considered before the High Court on 29.5.2009, it was ordered that the investigation of FIR No. 62/09 registered at Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation. In compliance thereof, the said first information report was re-registered vide CBI Case No. RC AC3/2009 A0001, On conclusion of the investigation, the CBI filed charge-sheet on 4.2.2010 against Raghuveer Singh, Bhanwar Lal, Anil Mittal, Mahesh Choudhary, Kailash Choudhary and Inder Singh for the offences under Sections 120-B read with Section 467 and 384 IPC and for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Sections 7, 8 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no case is made out against the petitioner on the face of it as well as on the evidence on record which has been placed by the Investigating Agency. Further, he has submitted that primarily the case of the prosecution is that the offence has been committed with regard to the alleged pattas, eight in number. He has further submitted that none of the pattas belongs to or are in the name of the present petitioner. The said pattas were recovered from the co-accused who was carrying them from a bank and thereafter the case came to be registered. He has also submitted that there had been no money transaction in the instant case and, therefore, the alleged offence against the petitioner is not made out. It is submitted that report before the Anti Corruption Bureau was lodged by Ramesh Chandra Sharma malafidely because two criminal cases were registered against him in the year 2007, bearing No. 114/07 and 119/07. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that co-accused Bhanwar Lal has been enlarged on bail by the learned Court below on 5.12.2009 and another co-accused Mahesh Choudhary has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 9.8.2010. He has referred to the complaint as well as other material on record, including the one filed with challan and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was not involved in the investigation of the criminal cases arising out of FIR No. 114/07 and 119/07. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant Ramesh Chandra Sharma, has seriously opposed the bail application. They have submitted that the alleged offences are made out against the petitioner. They have also submitted that it was the petitioner who was the kingpin of the entire case and he had been throughout involved in the matter. They have also drawn attention of this Court to the first information report filed by Ramesh Chandra before the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, the order passed by the High Court on 29.5.2009 directing for investigation of the case by the CBI and have also referred to the conclusion of the charge-sheet filed on 4.2.2010 on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation which includes call details, numbering to more than eight thousand, hand writing and the statement of the witnesses recorded. It has also been submitted that the order of the High Court dated 29.5.2009, entrusting the investigation to the CBI, was challenged before the Apex Court by one of the accused namely; Inder Singh but without any success, as the special leave petition was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 6.11.2009. The learned counsel for the prosecution has emphasized that the instant case is a one of serious nature involving the officers of the Investigating Agency who have committed various offences. They have referred to the statements of the witnesses Bhupendra Singh, Shashi Kant Gupta etc., in support of their submissions that the offences are clearly made out against the petitioner as well as the other accused-persons. This Court has given its anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsels for the rival parties and have carefully considered the material on record including the one of Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur as well as the Central Bureau of Investigation. Initially, the informant Ramesh Chandra Sharma had filed a report before the Anti Corruption Bureau on 22.12.2008 alleging therein that he had no concern in the matter for which reports had been lodged (114/07 and 119/07) by Mahendra Agarwal, Sajjan Kumar Agarwal and Mahesh Agarwal. It had been further stated by the informant that though filing of final report was recommended in the said criminal cases but in lieu of submitting the same before the Court concerned, he was being asked to transfer plots, totally measuring about 4000 square yards. Further, it has been revealed from the record that as the Anti Corruption Bureau was also keeping truck of the events with regard to the aforesaid demand being raised from the informant Ramesh Chandra Sharma that ultimately pattas were recovered by them from Mahesh Choudhary when he had taken out the same from the locker of a bank. The Anti Corruption Bureau had filed charge-sheet against Mahesh Choudhary and Inder Singh. It was at the time, when bail application of the accused-persons was being considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, that an order was passed on 29.5.2009 entrusting the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
(3.) The investigation in the case was then carried out by Central Bureau of Investigation and on conclusion of the same, it submitted the charge-sheet on 4.2.2010 Mahesh Choudhary, Inder Singh, Raghuveer Singh, Bhawar Lai, Anil Mittal and Kailash Choudhary for the aforementioned offences. THE challan against the petitioner Raghuveer Singh was filed after obtaining sanction from the concerning authority. THE Central Bureau of Investigation had collected evidence during the investigation which included the call details, hand writing specimens which were sent for opinion of the experts. THE opinion of the handwriting experts in respect of the accused Anil Mittal, Kailash Choudhary and Mahesh Choudhary was answered in positive. THE opinion of the experts in respect of voice of Anil Mittal, Bhawar Lal and petitioner Raghuveer Singh, which were received from CFSL on 29.1.2010, was also positive. THE statements of the prosecution witnesses, which had been recorded during the investigation by the CBI, have been perused by this Court, for example that of Shivram Singh, Bhagchand, Bhupendra Singh etc. It is to be noted that charge in this case was framed against the accused petitioner on 24.6.2010 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 384 read with 120-B, 384 read with 120-B, 467 read with 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter the trial commenced and 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined by the learned trial Court. The statement of Shashikant Gupta (PW. 5) has also been placed before the Court by the prosecution, for its perusal. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 6.10.2010 has framed a schedule with respect to the examination of prosecution witnesses from time to time, upto 7.1.2011. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find any just reason to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, the learned trial Court is directed to take effective steps for summoning the witnesses so that they may be examined as per the schedule framed and the trial may be concluded expeditiously.;