Banwari Lal Yadav v. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IIIrd Bail No. 9347 / 2017 Banwari Lal Yadav S/o Late Shri Birdha Ram Yadav, Aged About 60Years, R/o House No. 310, Sri Gopal Nagar, Gopalpura by Pass,Jaipur the Then Additional Commissioner, Income Tax Department,Alwar (at Present Lodged in Distt. Jail, Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan Through PP ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek-P.P. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Order 18/07/2017 Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.34/2017 registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra,AC.B., Jaipur, Chowki-Alwar, for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(D), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 384of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thepetitioner is in custody since 16.02.2017. Now, charges have beenframed against the petitioner under Sections 7, 13(1)(D), 13(2) ofthe Act and Section 384 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Petitioner hasretired from service and no useful purpose would be served bykeeping him in jail. Learned State Counsel on the other hand has opposed thepetition. Earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed onmerits by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2017 and the saidorder reads as under:- "Petitioner has filed this 2[nd] petition under Section439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail inF.I.R. No.34/2017 registered at Police Station PradhanAarakshi Kendra, A.C.B., Jaipur, Chowki-Alwar for offenceunder Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of The Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988 and Section 384 Indian Penal Code,1860. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submittedthat the petitioner was working as Additional Commissioner ofIncome Tax Range-II at the time of the alleged trap. As per theprosecution case, petitioner had raised a demand of Rupeesseven lacs from the complainant. On the basis of the statementof the complainant, trap was organized by the Anti CorruptionBureau. At the time of raid, Rupees fifty thousand in cash wererecovered lying under a cushion in the office of the petitioner.Two blank cheques in the sum of Rupees three and a half lacsand Rupees three lacs were recovered from the drawer of thetable of the petitioner. Petitioner has been falsely involved inthis case. In-fact, no official work of the complainant waspending with the petitioner. Complainant was dealing in cashwith Amar Singh. It is the case of the prosecution, thatpetitioner was extorting money from the complainant bythreatening him. Petitioner is in custody since 16.2.2017.Challan has already been presented in the court and petitioneris not required for further investigation. Learned state counsel has opposed the petition andhas submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner wasserious in nature. There was recording of the conversationbetween the complainant and the petitioner with regard todemand of Rupees seven lacs and further it had been told by the petitioner that the complainant should bring two blank chequesin the sum of Rupees three and a half lacs and Rupees three lacseach. Offence under Section 384 Indian Penal Code, 1860 hasalready been added. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegationslevelled against the petitioner, no ground for grant of bail to thepetitioner is made out. Dismissed. " There is no change in circumstances warranting interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA)J. Sudha/08