Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr Praveen Goyal vs Anti Corruption Bureau Throug Pp on 18 March, 2013
Author: R.S.Chauhan
Bench: R.S.Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2472/2013 Dr. Praveen Goyal versus Anti Corruption Bureau Date of Order : 18th March, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. R.N. Khandelwal Sr. Counsel with Mr. Nitin Jain, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Heard Mr. R.N. Khandelwal, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Nitin Jain, and Mr. G.S. Rathore, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Mr. R.N. Khandelwal, the learned Senior Counsel has raised the following contentions before this Court:-
Firstly, the entire case of the prosecution rests on the report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) dated 30th November, 2012. However, according to the said report, insufficient material existed in the tape for carrying out spectrography of the voice. Secondly, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner, who happens to be Dy. Registrar of the Kota University, had demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant. Thirdly, there is neither any acceptance of the illegal gratification by the petitioner, nor any recovery of the amount allegedly paid by the complainant to the petitioner. According to the prosecution itself, the amount was recovered from a file, which was in the complainant's hands. Moreover, there is no other evidence with regard to recovery. Fourthly, the petitioner happens to be the Dy. Registrar, whose only function is to forward the application moved by the complainant and others for consideration to the Registrar of the University and to other authorized persons. Thus, he acts more as a post office. Hence, he is not concerned with the affiliation to be granted by the University to the colleges run by the complainant. In fact, on the relevant date, no work was pending with the petitioner. Lastly, that since he is the Dy. Registrar, in case he were arrested, it would adversely affect his service career. Therefore, the benefit of anticipatory bail should be granted to him by this Court.
3. On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Rathore has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court:-
Firstly, that there is a transcript of the demand made by the petitioner. According to the transcript, the petitioner had demanded Rs. 1 lakh as illegal gratification. It was further agreed that since Rs. 1 lakh was a huge amount, only part payment of the same shall be made on 25-3-2011. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the element of demand does exist. Secondly, on the date of the trap, the file containing the illegal amount of Rs. 20,000/- was found to be lying on the table on which the petitioner was working. According to him, it is a mis-statement of fact that the file was in the hands of the complainant when the trap party entered the petitioner's office. Thirdly, when the petitioner's hands were washed, the water turned slightly muddy due to presence of phenolphthalein powder. Moreover, the currency recovered from the file matched the currency which was already marked by the department. Hence, the three elements of demand, acceptance and recovery are established, prima facie, by the prosecution. Fourthly, that even if no work was pending, for the sake of argument with the petitioner, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even then it is immaterial if a work is pending with the alleged accused at the time of trap proceedings, or not. Even otherwise, according to the transcript, the petitioner had promised to get the complainant's work done provided the complainant paid the petitioner an illegal gratification of Rs. 1 lakh. Thus, a hope was held out to the complainant that his work would be done provided that the demand of petitioner was met. Fifthly, that according to the CFSL report, dated 30th November, 2012, there is a similarity in specimen voice in respect of their linguistic and phonetic features. Moreover, according to the report, the voice is insufficient for carrying out a spectrography examination. Thus, according to the learned counsel, it is not that the CFSL Report is negative in nature. Lastly, the investigation is still continuing. Therefore, this court should not grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner.
4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this court is not inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The bail application is, hereby, dismissed.
(R.S.CHAUHAN),J.
Mak/-
13All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Anil Makawana Jr. P.A.