P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Apprehension of arrest in furtherance of investigation into FIRs No.111 of 2016, 110 of 2016 and 109 of 2016, registered at Police Station CPS, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, petitioner K.K. Mathur, Director (Engineering), Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA), has laid three separate pre-arrest bail applications. Details about the offences, for which the petitioner is castigated, are as infra: JUDGEMENT_217_LAWS(RAJ)4_2017_1.html Likewise, petitioner Rajendra Singh Solanki, Ex.Chairman, JDA, has moved four separate pre-arrest bail applications to thwart his arrest in furtherance of investigation into FIRs No. 110 of 2016, 108 of 2016, 111 of 2016 and 109 of 2016 of Police Station CPS, ACB, Jaipur respectively. The offences attributed to the petitioner in the aforesaid four FIRs are detailed as infra: JUDGEMENT_217_LAWS(RAJ)4_2017_2.html Similarly, petitioners Arun Kumar and Jagdish Chhangani, who, at the relevant time, were respectively posted as Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer in JDA, have laid a joint anticipatory bail application to resist their arrest in furtherance of investigation into FIR No. 108 of 2016 of Police Station CPS, ACB, Jaipur (Outpost Jodhpur). The offences slapped against these petitioners are detailed as under: JUDGEMENT_217_LAWS(RAJ)4_2017_3.html
(2.) Efforts made by the petitioners for seeking anticipatory bail in respect of aforementioned FIRs did not fructify before the Special Court, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court') inasmuch as their bail applications have been turned down.
(3.) Espousing cause of petitioner K.K. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, has urged that requisite financial sanction was issued by the petitioner in adherence of resolution of the Board, therefore, the said act of petitioner is required to be examined by the Court with pragmatic approach for grant of anticipatory bail. Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, would contend that there is no allegation in the FIRs about loss to the exchequer is yet another mitigating circumstance for favourable consideration of pre-arrest bail plea of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that petitioner has issued financial sanction in exercise of schedule of powers conferred on him being Member of Executive Committee pursuant to resolution of the Board and even if it is assumed to be an act dehors the JDA Act, it is rather difficult to comprehend that the same amounts to serious criminal misconduct on his part. Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, has strenuously urged that all the cases of Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be treated at par inasmuch as accepting illegal gratification by a public servant cannot be equated with other offences envisaged under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel has urged that, looking to the alleged criminal delinquency of the petitioner, there is hardly any justification for the investigating agency to apprehend the petitioner for custodial investigation. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on following judgments : 1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 564] 2. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors.[(1994) 4 SCC 260] 3. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2011) 1 SCC 694] .;