Sayoram Meena vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, Sayoram Meena, a Superintendent CGST, Range Jalore, filed a bail application before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. He was arrested in connection with FIR No. 41/2022 registered at Police Station ACB Jalore, CPS Jaipur, for offenses under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since February 9, 2022. His counsel argued that no money was recovered from him, no investigation or recovery is pending, and the trial will take time. The respondent, State of Rajasthan, through its Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail application, stating that the offense is prima facie proved based on the transcript and available evidence.

Held

The High Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, Sayoram Meena. The Court considered the fact that the petitioner had been in custody for over a month and that further investigation and trial would take a significant amount of time. Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, the Court found that the bail application deserved to be accepted. Consequently, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond of ₹50,000/- and two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. He is required to appear before the trial Court on each date of hearing and whenever called upon until the completion of the trial, and must not be wanted in any other case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Sayoram Meena, should be granted bail in FIR No. 41/2022 registered under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the IPC? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner's counsel contended that money was not recovered from the petitioner, he has been in custody since February 9, 2022, no investigation or recovery is pending against him, and the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for the grant of bail. Respondent's arguments: The Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the bail application, asserting that the offense is prima facie proved based on the transcript and the evidence available on record.