✦ High Court of India · 09 Jun 2025

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp (CBI) vs Connected With

Case Details High Court of India · 09 Jun 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
09 Jun 2025
Bench
Length
1,070 words

Mr. Vinay Jain, Adv. Ms. Kriti Jain, Adv. Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Singh Yadav, Spl. PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA (V. J.) 09/06/2025 Order

1. These bail applications have been filed by the petitioners under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No. RC- 2182025-A-0006, registered at Police Station CBI, AC III, New [2025:RJ-JP:22995] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4742/2025] Delhi for the offences under Sections 61(2) of BNS and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of P.C. Act, 1988.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the investigation has been completed by the prosecution and challan has already been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are in custody since 20.03.2025 and the allegations levelled against them are based upon the documentary evidence and such documents have already been placed before the trial Court alongwith copy of the charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Krishna Gopal Agrawal Vs. CBI in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4338/2025 decided on 24.04.2025 in which the following observations have been made:- “The present bail applications have been filed by the accused-applicants under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 against the orders dated 18.03.2025 & 02.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (CBI) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan First in connection with FIR No. RC 216 2025 A 0003, registered at Police Station CBI/AC-1,New Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended 2018) (for short 'the Act of1988'), by which the bail applications of the accused-applicant sunder Section 483 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 have been dismissed. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants submitted that the accused-applicants have falsely been implicated in this matter. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants argued that after investigation of the case, charge-sheet against the accused-applicants has been filed, but investigation against some of the other accused persons is still pending, which will take time to complete. So far as the present accused-applicants are concerned, they have been sent to judicial custody, therefore, [2025:RJ-JP:22995] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4742/2025] there is no requirement of any custodial investigation. Learned counsel for the accused- applicants prays that the accused-applicants are behind the bars since long, therefore, the accused- applicants be granted benefit of bail. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in2012(1) SCC 40. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation vehemently opposes the bail applications and while drawing the attention of this Court towards the reply filed to the bail applications, submitted that the accused-applicants have no right to be released on bail in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of R.M.Malkani Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1973 SC157. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs.State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425, has elaborately given the grounds on which the bail to the accused-applicants, charged with the offences punishable under the Act of1988, can be granted. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that there is no ground available to the accused-applicants to be enlarged on bail. Learned Special Public Prosecutor contends that the corruption is not only a punishable offence, but is also affects the economic condition of the country, therefore, the accused- applicants should not be granted benefit of bail. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take long time to conclude, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it proper to allow the bail applications filed by the accused-applicants.” [2025:RJ-JP:22995] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4742/2025]

3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended that the serious case where there is an allegation of demanding Rs.2,40,000/- and offence committed by the petitioners are of heinous nature, therefore the bail application of the petitioners may be dismissed.

5. Heard and perused the material available on record. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by counsel for both the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

6. Accordingly, these bail applications are hereby allowed. The accused-petitioners namely 1. Udai Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad and 2. Suman Kumar Singh S/o Kailash Prasad Singh, shall be released on bail in pursuance of FIR No. RC- 2182025-A-0006, registered at Police Station CBI, AC III, New Delhi, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. That apart, the accused-petitioners shall also follow the conditions as under:- they shall not leave the country without prior they shall not tamper with any evidence, nor (i). would influence the witnesses in the case. (ii). permission of the Court. (iii). they shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend each and every date of hearing in the trial, until and unless his presence is exempted by the trial Court. Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-244-245 (ANAND SHARMA (V. J.)),J

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments