Banwari Lal Yadav v. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Vth Bail No. 2463 / 2018 Banwari Lal Yadav S/o Late Shri Birdha Ram Yadav, R/o House No.310, Shri Gopal Nagar, Gopal Pura by Pass, Jaipur. the ThenAdditional Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Alwar. (atPresent Lodged in Central Jail, Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan Through PP. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Gurjar-P.P. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment 23/02/2018 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,A.C.B., Jaipur, Chowki Alwar, for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 384 ofIndian Penal Code, 1860. Heard. Bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on meritsby this Court vide order dated 26.04.2017 and following order waspassed by this Court:- “Petitioner has filed this 2[nd] petition underSection 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.34/2017 registeredat Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, A.C.B., Jaipur, Chowki-Alwar for offence under Sections 7,13(1)(d), 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Section 384 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Learned counsel for the petitioner hassubmitted that the petitioner was working asAdditional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-II atthe time of the alleged trap. As per the prosecutioncase, petitioner had raised a demand of Rupeesseven lacs from the complainant. On the basis of thestatement of the complainant, trap was organized bythe Anti Corruption Bureau. At the time of raid,Rupees fifty thousand in cash were recovered lyingunder a cushion in the office of the petitioner. Twoblank cheques in the sum of Rupees three and a halflacs and Rupees three lacs were recovered from thedrawer of the table of the petitioner. Petitioner hasbeen falsely involved in this case. In-fact, no officialwork of the complainant was pending with thepetitioner. Complainant was dealing in cash withAmar Singh. It is the case of the prosecution, thatpetitioner was extorting money from thecomplainant by threatening him. Petitioner is incustody since 16.2.2017. Challan has already beenpresented in the court and petitioner is not requiredfor further investigation. Learned state counsel has opposed the petitionand has submitted that the offence committed by thepetitioner was serious in nature. There wasrecording of the conversation between thecomplainant and the petitioner with regard todemand of Rupees seven lacs and further it had beentold by the petitioner that the complainant shouldbring two blank cheques in the sum of Rupees threeand a half lacs and Rupees three lacs each. Offenceunder Section 384 Indian Penal Code, 1860 hasalready been added. Keeping in view the seriousness of theallegations levelled against the petitioner, no groundfor grant of bail to the petitioner is made out. Dismissed.” Now, witnesses Dhanpat (complainant), Salem Mohammad(Raid Officer) and Mahinder Yadav (Recovery witness) have beenexamined, during trial. Two more witnesses have also beenexamined, during trial. Said witnesses have duly supported theprosecution case, during trial. Hence, no ground for grant of bailto the petitioner is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA)J. Sudha/39