Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Brijraj Singh vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 21 March, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Brijraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan SB CRIMINAL MISC. IV BAIL APPLICATION NO.11999/2011. Date of Order: 21st March, 2012. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE Mr. J.S. Sodhi for the petitioner. Mrs. Saroj Singh, wife of the petitioner. Mr. N.A. Naqvi, AAG along with Mr. Rahil Kalam for the State. Reporetable BY THE COURT:-
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 Mannual 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The trial in this case has already commenced by framing of charge against the petitioner on 21.5.2011 for the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, the complainants Govind Garg and Aakash Garg appeared before the trial court on 1.7.2011 and their examination in chief was recorded. Thereafter, the defence took 12 dates of hearing commencing from 15.7.2011 to 23.9.2011 to complete the cross examination of the complainant Govind Garg (PW-1). The cross examination of the complainant Aakash Garg was completed only on 29.9.2011. The prosecution witnesses, namely; Dr. Anil Samaria (PW-3) and Rajendra Sharma (PW-4) had appeared before the trial court but their examination-in-chief alone could be recorded. Another prosecution witness Bhanwar Singh Nathawat appeared before the trial court on 15.10.2011 and 2.11.2011, but his statement could not be recorded. The examination-in-chief of Bhanwar Singh Nathawat was recorded on 18.11.2011 and the cross examination remained incomplete. On 23.11.2011, an application was filed on behalf of the defence. The trial in this case is still continuing because of the extraordinary time being taken on behalf of the accused for cross examination.
6. So far as the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) is concerned, the allegation against the accused therein was that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with the accused A. Raja, R.K. Chandolia and other accused persons during September, 2009 to get UAS licence for providing telecom services to otherwise an ineligible company. Sanjay Chandra was the Managing Director of M/s Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Ltd. The first come first served procedure of allocation of UAS Licences and spectrum was manipulated by the accused persons in oder to benefit M/s Unitech Group of Companies. The cut off date of 25.9.2007 was decided by accused public servants of DOT primarily to allow consideration of Unitech Group applications for UAS licences. The said Companies were ineligible to get the licences till the grant of UAS licences. The Unitech Group was almost last within the applicants considered for allocation of UAS licences and as per existing policy of first come first served, no licence could be issued in as many as 10 to 13 circles where sufficient spectrum was not available. The accused Sanjay Chandra, in conspiracy with accused public servants, was aware of the whole design of the allocation of LOIs. It was in these facts situation that the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the bail application of Sanjay Chandra which is totally different from the one, of the present case.
In the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in para 25, observed:
......Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant of denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case......
Therefore, the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) is of no assistance to the accused petitioner. It is important to note that the principle of law is well settled that the law of precedent is not strictly applicable in case of bail to an accused person. The question of bail to each accused has to be considered on the basis of their facts situation.
7. Since long, the law with regard to the grant or refusal of bail is well settled. A court while granting bail has to exercise its discretion in judicious manner and not as a matter of course. At the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case is not to be undertaken.
For the sake of illustration, a reference be made to the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi- (2001)4 SCC 280. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed thus:
'.... while granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the acused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations.....'
8. The aforesaid principles have been reitarated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi- (2005)8 SCC 21. In para 11 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Court has further laid down:
'....It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and Puran Vs. Rambilas.)' While a detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no prejudging and no prejudice, a brief examination to be satisfied about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary.'
9. Therefore, after taking into consideration the settled proposition of law with regard to the grant/refusal of bail including one reiterated in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no just reason to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The accused petitioner had been filing bail applications, one after the other, by raising various grounds from time to time. However, after having been un-successful on merits, the petitioner has filed this fourth bail application, after a short period from the date of consideration of the third bail application by this court, on the ground of judgment passed in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra). In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking into consideration the settled principles with regard to bail and on the basis of the facts and circumstances of that case, had been pleased to grant bail. However, as mentioned above, the situation in the instant case with regard to the facts, the nature of charges etc., where the petitioner was caught red handed for taking bribe, are totally different. In such view of the matter, it would neither be in the interest of justice nor in the interest of the society at large to reconsider the question of bail to the petitioner.
10. No doubt, every person who is in custody is entitled for speedy trial. The facts with regard to the trial in the instant case, since the framing of charge on 21.5.2011, clearly shows that proceedings have progressed at a snail's speed and it would be in the fitness of things to say that the delay in the same is on account of the defence. But in the interest of justice that the learned trial court should proceed with the trial expeditiously. Therefore, the learned trial court is directed to hold the trial, in the instant case, on day today basis and conlude the same at the earliest possible.
11. Consequently, this fourth bail application is dismissed with the aforesaid direction to the learned trial court. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court forth-with.
(RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE), J.
bblm All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being e-mailed.
BBL Mathur Private Secretary