(Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.)
Criminal Appeal No 89 of 2021 [Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 4657 of 2020]., decided on January 29, 2021
Suresh Kumar Sharma _______________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Rajasthan and Another ____________________ Respondent(s).
With
Criminal Appeal No 90 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 4789 of 2020)
Criminal Appeal No 89 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 4657 of 2020) and Criminal Appeal No 90 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 4789 of 2020)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Criminal Appeal No 89 of 2021
1. Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by the denial of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19731, these proceedings have been instituted under Article 136 of the Constitution by the appellant.
3. The appellant was the Chairperson of the Surajgarh Municipality in Rajasthan. His successor was elected on 21 August 2015 and assumed charge with effect from 31 August 2015. FIR No 310 of 2017 was registered against the appellant on 9 November 2017, together with seven other persons. The allegation is that between 21 August 2015, when his successor was elected, and the assumption of office on 31 August 2015, the appellant had executed four pattas causing a deficit of Rs. 32,133/- to the treasury. The charge sheet was submitted on 27 February 2020, after investigation, for offences under the provisions of Sections 13(1)(c), (d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as well as Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
4. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that though the FIR was lodged on 9 November 2017, no arrest was effected and, as a matter of fact, even the charge sheet has been submitted on 27 February 2020. Learned counsel submitted that the apprehension which gave rise to the filing of the application under Section 438 was occasioned by the fact that the trial Judge, while issuing summons on 30 March 2020, issued an arrest warrant. It has been submitted that the issuance of the arrest warrant was contrary to the provisions of Sections 190, 204 and 87 of the CrPC and the principles which have been laid down in the judgment of this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal2, which have been reiterated in the subsequent decisions in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra3 and Vikas v. State of Rajasthan4. On these grounds, it has been submitted that anticipatory bail ought to have been granted having regard to the fact that the FIR had been lodged nearly two and half years prior to the filing of the charge sheet and that the appellant has cooperated in the course of the investigation.
5. The State of Rajasthan has filed a counter affidavit in pursuance of the notice that was issued by this Court on 5 October 2020. An interim protection from arrest was granted by the order of this Court.
6. We have heard Ms. Nilofar Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, who has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the appellant had executed the pattas even after the term of his office had ended.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that since the charge sheet has already been filed and having regard to the facts and circumstances, the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 would be in order. We accordingly order and direct that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court, in connection with FIR No 310 of 2017 registered at PS OP Anti Corruption Bureau, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
8. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
Criminal Appeal No 90 of 2021
10. Leave granted.
11. The present appeal has been heard together with the companion criminal appeal arising out of the denial of anticipatory bail to the co-accused. The facts pertaining to the present appeal are similar.
12. We accordingly order and direct, for the reasons already indicated, that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court, in connection with FIR No 310 of 2017 registered at PS OP Anti Corruption Bureau, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
13. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4657/2020
Suresh Kumar Sharma _______________________________ Petitioner
v.
State of Rajasthan & Anr ________________________ Respondent(s)
(WITH I.R. and IA No. 98020/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH SLP(Crl) No. 4789/2020 (II)
(WITH I.R. and IA No. 100851/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date: 29-01-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
(Before Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR
Mrs. Rohini Musa, Adv.
Mr. Zafar Innayat, Adv.
Mr. Satish Khandelwal, Adv.
Mr. H.D. Thanvi, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Matoliya, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Nilofar Khan, Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
Criminal Appeal No 89 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No 4657 of 2020)
15. Leave granted.
16. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that since the charge sheet has already been filed and having regard to the facts and circumstances, the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 would be in order. We accordingly order and direct that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court, in connection with FIR No 310 of 2017 registered at PS OP Anti Corruption Bureau, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
17. The appeal is accordingly allowed in terms of the signed order.
18. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
Criminal Appeal No 90 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No 4789 of 2020)
19. Leave granted.
20. The present appeal has been heard together with the companion criminal appeal arising out of the denial of anticipatory bail to the co-accused. The facts pertaining to the present appeal are similar.
21. We accordingly order and direct, for the reasons already indicated, that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court, in connection with FIR No 310 of 2017 registered at PS OP Anti Corruption Bureau, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
22. The appeal is accordingly allowed in terms of the signed order.
23. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
———
1 “CrPC”
2 (2007) 12 SCC 1
3 (2012) 9 SCC 791
4 (2014) 3 SCC 321
