RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE, J. - (1.)
(2.) THIS fourth bail application has been filed by the accused on 9th December, 2011. The earlier bail application (third in number) was decided by this court on 21.11.2011, after considering in detail the various contentions raised on behalf of the accused, such as, that the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are not attracted in view of the nature of service of the petitioner with Urban Co -operative Bank Ltd., Ajmer; as per Department Manual of Instructions, it is a general rule to release the accused on bail in a matter of present nature etc. Soon thereafter, this fourth bail application has been filed in the first week of December, 2011. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the accused is charged with and facing trial for the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in which the sentence prescribed under law is up -to 5 years and 7 years respectively. Further, he has submitted that the accusation against the petitioner is in respect of corruption is for an amount less than Rs. 2 lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, in support of his submissions, relied upon the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (SLP (Cri.) No. 5650/2011) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.11.2011. Therefore, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the accused be now released on bail, as he is in custody for quite some time. The prosecution has seriously opposed this fourth bail application and has submitted that while deciding the earlier bail applications, this court had, after having considered various contentions raised on behalf of the accused petitioner, dismissed them by detailed orders. In such view of the matter, there is no just reason now to reconsider the question of bail to the petitioner, particularly when the earlier bail application was decided only a few days earlier i.e. on 21.11.2011. It has also been submitted that the accusation/charges against the petitioner are of very serious nature where he was trapped for accepting bribe of Rs. 1 lac and articles of various kinds like computer, LCD, AC etc., had also been received by him with the same purpose. Learned public prosecutor has also submitted that though the charges in this case had been framed on 21.5.2011 but on account of long cross examinations by the defence counsel in a casual manner running through number of dates of hearing, the prosecution evidence is yet to be completed and the delay in trial is on account of the side of the accused. It has been submitted that the cases of the present nature are the one which effects the entire society and the interest of an individual, in respect of liberty or otherwise, cannot be considered over and above that of society. Therefore, it has been submitted that this fourth bail application be dismissed as there is no just reason for this court to reconsider the question of bail to the petitioner.
(3.) THE case of the prosecution is that the accused was trapped for accepting bribe of Rs. 1 lac in the month of February, 2011. The accused had also accepted bribe in kind by accepting commodities like computer, LCD, AC etc. It is the case of the prosecution that the accusation against the petitioner for accepting bribe is worth about Rs. 2 lacs but the same was done with the purpose of loan amount which was more than crore of rupees.;