Sanjay Kumar Baya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27347) on 17 June, 2025

0
4


Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Sanjay Kumar Baya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27347) on 17 June, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:27347]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7166/2025

Sanjay Kumar Baya S/o Roshanlal Baya, Aged About 53 Years,
R/o 61, Samta Nagar, Sector-3, Hiranmagri, Udaipur.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Sangram Singh
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. R.S. Bhati, P.P.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

17/06/2025

1. Apprehending the arrest, the present bail application has

been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 BNSS (Section 438

Cr.P.C.) in connection with FIR No.110/2017 registered at Police

Station CPS ACB Jaipur, District ACB Udaipur for the offence(s)

under Sections 13(1)(C)(D), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 read with Sections 409, 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

happens to be Patwari of the village panchayat. The allegations

are that the sarpanch and gram sewak have issued pattas in

favour of certain people in the year 2009, in which, applying a

wrong rule, the allotments were made.

2.1 Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had to play no

role in the process of issuance of patta and receiving the amount

by the panchayat. The department of Panchayat Raj and the

department of the Revenue are two distinct departments and the

(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 06:36:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27347] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7166/2025]

Patwari has to do nothing when it comes to issuance of patta. The

incident is of the year 2009. Sixteen years have elapsed but no

endeavour were made to interact him and now, attempts are

being made to apprehend him, when he is ready to co-operate

with the investigation, then why after 16 years of the incident, in

which he had to play no role. Thus, the petitioner has a good case

for anticipatory bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the bail application.

4. Heard. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel

for the petitioner and taking into account the totality of facts and

circumstances of the case, prima facie, there seems force that

being the Patwari, the petitioner had to play no role in the process

of issuance of patta and receiving the amount by the panchayat.

The department of Panchayat Raj and the department of the

Revenue are two distinct departments and the Patwari has to do

nothing when it comes to issuance of patta. The incident is of the

year 2009. Sixteen years have elapsed but no endeavour were

made to interact him and now, attempts are being made to

apprehend him. He is ready to co-operate with the investigation,

then why after 16 years of the incident, in which he had to play no

role. The petitioner shall be compelled to admit to Jail and then to

get bail. A good case for pre-arrest bail is made out, thus, without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems

it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application.

5. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The

S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station CPS ACB Jaipur, District

(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 06:36:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27347] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7166/2025]

ACB Udaipur in FIR No. 110/2017 is directed that in the event of

arrest of the petitioner – Sanjay Kumar Baya S/o Roshanlal

Baya, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the

sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the

following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and
when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the court or any police officer, and

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India
without previous permission of the court.

(FARJAND ALI),J
187-AnilKC/-

(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 06:36:34 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here