Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) ALL these three bail applications arise out of common FIR, hence decided by this common order. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Sharda, son of petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda, Mr. Deepak Sharma, brother of petitioner Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Sushil Kanwar, wife of petitioner Hemraj Kanawat, Mr. Hardayal Singh, Dy. S.P., ACB, Jaipur being the Investigating Officer and perused the material on record.
(2.) EARLIER , application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda that he should be allowed to argue himself but today, Shri Ashutosh Sharda son of petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda has submitted that he is ready to argue and his father is not in a position to argue the case and he does not want to press the application (8330/2014 dated 14.7.2014), hence the application is disposed of accordingly. The contention on behalf of the petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda is that he has not demanded any money. Nothing has been recovered at his instance. He has not done anything in pursuance of the demand, no witnesses has stated anything against him directly or indirectly. Charge -sheet has been filed. The Investigating Agency has drawn assumptions and there is no legal evidence against the petitioner. He has been implicated only on the strength of three transcripts; one is of 16.3.2013 in which three numbers have been asked from petitioner Hem Raj Kanawat. Name of these candidates does not appear in the final merit list and apart from it the conversation has taken place on 16.3.2013 whereas the result was to declare in April, 2014 and there was a long gap inspite of this no benefit has been taken by the petitioner. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner which could connect the petitioner with the incident that he took any money or benefit to get selected the candidates in Lower Division Clerk Examination in the Ajmer Judgeship. The other contention on behalf of petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda is that allegation against the petitioner is that in one case under NDPS Act relating to Ramesh, he misused the office and after taking bribe, judgment of acquittal has been passed but there is no evidence on the record to connect the petitioner with this crime. He has been implicated only on the strength of one conversation with Hemraj Kanawat dated 3.4.2013 in which Hem Raj has requested to list the matter after 5th. Kumar Singh and Pradeep Kumar who were the Advocates in the matter have been released on bail and it has specifically been held by the Court that there is no evidence on record which shows that any corrupt practices has been used. Initially, he was not arrested thereafter under the pressure of the advocates, he has been arrested. Trial will take time. Co -accused Hitesh has been discharged and other many accused have been bailed out. As regards the allegation of accepting Induction Cooker, the concerned officer has specifically stated that money has been paid to him. The Investigating Officer is not clear about the role of the accused persons as some of the persons who were earlier witnesses in the matter has been made accused in subsequent charge -sheets. The petitioner is ill, he is suffering from the disease of Pancreatices since 2007, he remained in I.C.U. for 27 days at that time and he is suffering from other diseases also. His further contention is that provisions of Section 41A Cr.P.C. has not been complied with and reliance has been placed on Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. decided on 2.7.2014; and Ku. Hema Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & ors. decided by the Supreme Court on 16.1.2014 and his contention is that the petitioner be released on bail.
(3.) THE contention on behalf of petitioner Rajesh Sharma is that he is behind the bars from last 17 -18 months, co -accused Abdul Razzak has been released on bail. Charges have been framed. In total 19 persons have been bailed out, trial will take time, hence the petitioner be released on bail.;