Raj Kumar Jain vs Spe, Lokayukt, Indore

Heard. Perused the case diary.

This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant â€" Raj Kumar Jain S/o Fatelal Jain is apprehending his

arrest in connection with Crime No.32/2016 registered at Police Station Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), District Indore for the offence

punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with Section 120-B of IPC.

The prosecution story in short was that applicant Raj Kumar Jain was posted in Customs Department as Superintendent on 31.05.2016. The

complainant Vikas Sharma, a representative of LNR Global Trading Agency, which was a company involved in export of items, there was a

requirement for verification of Indore office of this company from the Customs Department and the verification report was required to be sent by the

applicant. The complainant when approached the applicant, bribe was demanded by him and other co-accused persons. The complainant not inclined

to give bribe, lodged a complaint. Consequently, demand of bribe was recorded on voice recorder and trap was laid in which tainted currency was

seized from the possession of two other co-accused persons. However, applicant was also made accused on the ground that he was involved in the

demand of bribe and was present in the room when bribe was being taken by other co-accused persons, which showed his consent as he being the

superior officer of those two co-accused persons.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident being of the year 2016, there was no progress in the investigation till 2019, that applicant

was neither involved in demand of bribe nor in acceptance of bribe, that his hands when dipped in sodium carbonate solution, solution had not turned

pink, that the complainant though had named applicant in FIR, subsequently a month later has submitted a written document in which he has denied

involvement of the applicant, that applicant has donated his kidney to his son and both of them are prone to infections and need regular treatment and

on these grounds, anticipatory bail has been sought.

Orders of Co-ordinate Benches dated in 20.11.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No.21271/2017, 10.09.2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.34454/2018, 17.05.2019

passed in M.Cr.C. No.19590/2019 and citation of Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra & others, AIR

2011 SC 312, which underlines the scope of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. have been filed in support.

Per contra, learned counsel for Lokayukt has opposed the anticipatory bail application stating that investigation was delayed due to delay in procuring

sanction order, that the voice recording showed demand of bribe by the applicant, that the applicant refused to give his voice sample thereby a

presumption would be raised against him, that as per Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, only proof of demand is sufficient to invoke

liability, that there was a conspiracy hatched by the applicant and two other co-accused persons and in pursuance of which two co-accused persons

had accepted the bribe and therefore, it is prayed that the application be rejected.

Considered rival contentions and perused the case diary. Perusal of sanction order shows that some lacunae had been pointed out in the prosecution

story, which were considered in detail. The lacunae which have been pointed out are that there was no seizure of money from the possession of the

applicant, that there was negative indication in sodium carbonate solution test and that mere presence of the applicant in the same room in which other

two co-accused persons were caught taking bribe does not prove his consent, that there was no actual demand of gratification and that the

complainant himself had submitted written applications supported with affidavits twice, that applicant had not taken any money. These objections were

considered by the sanctioning authority and it was concluded that the applicant being superior officer of two other co-accused persons namely, R. K.

Gautam and Ishaq Khan did not direct his subordinates not to accept bribe money and that recording in voice recorder was indicative enough that

demand was being made by the applicant, that even though no money was recovered from the possession of the applicant, presence of applicant in the

same room with other co-accused persons and acceptance of money by those two co-accused persons was indicative of a conspiracy hatched by the

applicant with two other co-accused persons and considering all these aspects, sanction was granted.

Considered rival contentions.

Perusal of transcript/conversation shows proposal by applicant to get the work done in “fifteen†(indication of an amount of Rs.15,000/-) to which

the reply is made in “hmmâ€. Whether such reply amounts to demand, is a moot question. Further, the trap team on entering the chamber of the

applicant, had held the hands of both other co-accused persons and not that of the applicant. There is no physical acceptance of money by the

applicant. Further, as already seen, there has been a dilemma before the sanctioning authority for a period of three years whether to grant sanction or

not.

Considering all these aspects, in view of submissions as also in view of citations, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. It is directed

that the applicant â€" Raj Kumar Jain shall not be arrested by the Arresting Officer, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to abiding the conditions

enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and he will cooperate with the investigating officer.

M.Cr.C. No.26133/2019 is allowed and stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.