Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Smt Pinki Sahu vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 14 December, 2016

Author: Sabina

Bench: Sabina

                                1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
               JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

                             ORDER

 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.15214/2016

Smt. Pinki Sahu W/o Jitendara Kumar Sahu B/c Teli, Address:
R/o Opposite Hill View Garden, Ward No. 3, Chhabara, Distt.
Baran (raj.) (at Present in Distt. Jail Baran)

V/s.
State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Date of Order:                           December 14, 2016

             HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Mr. Amit Dadhich, for the petitioner.

Mr. R.R. Baisla, P.P. for the State.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.315/2016 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau Chowki Baran, Pradhan Arakshi Kendra ACB Jaipur, for offences u/Ss. 7,9,13 (1)(D), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

Present case relates to a trap organized by Anti Corruption Bureau on a complaint filed by the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not present at the spot nor any recovery was effected from her. As per the prosecution case, the amount in question had been handed over by the complainant to the husband of the petitioner and he had thrown the said amount in drain on seeing the police party. Thus, the amount in question was also not recovered from the husband of the petitioner. 2 Learned counsel has further submitted that there was no occasion for the petitioner to accept bribe money in invalid old currency. Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant was having a grievance against the petitioner as she had demolished the unauthorized construction raised by the complainant. Petitioner is in custody since 10.11.2016. Presently, petitioner is in judicial custody and is not required for further investigation.

Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to order the release of the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this petition is allowed. Petitioner be admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court.

(SABINA),J.

Tanwar/-

P.A. Item No.33