Bhaw Singh S/O Shri Chanduram Meghwal vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Bhaw Singh and Devendra Gurjar, are accused in FIR No. 187/2024 registered under the Prevention of Anti-Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 61(2) of the B.N.S. Bhaw Singh, a contractual employee, is alleged to have received a bribe bag from Devendra Gurjar, a Sub-Inspector posted on deputation at the GST Department. Devendra is accused of demanding Rs. 1,50,000/- and accepting Rs. 1,40,000/-. Both petitioners have been in custody since September 3, 2024. The prosecution informed the Court that prosecution sanction for Devendra Gurjar, a public servant, had not yet been accorded.
Held
The Court held that under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a court cannot take cognizance against a public servant without a prosecution sanction from the competent authority. Since no such sanction had been accorded for accused-petitioner Devendra Gurjar, who is a public servant and in custody since September 3, 2024, his continued detention was not justified. The Court reasoned that keeping a person in custody indefinitely in such a situation is not permissible. Consequently, the Court found it just and proper to enlarge both accused-petitioners on bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case. The operative direction was to release the petitioners on bail upon furnishing personal and surety bonds.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court can take cognizance against a public servant (Devendra Gurjar) in the absence of a prosecution sanction from the competent authority, as mandated by Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 2. Whether continued custody of the accused-petitioners is justified given the lack of prosecution sanction for one of them? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that their continued custody was unjustified, particularly for Devendra Gurjar, a public servant, due to the absence of the requisite prosecution sanction. They relied on Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which prohibits courts from taking cognizance against a public servant without such sanction. They contended that keeping a person in custody indefinitely without this mandatory sanction is not justifiable. Respondent's Arguments: The State of Rajasthan, through the Public Prosecutor, submitted that prosecution sanction for Devendra Gurjar had not been accorded so far. No other arguments were recorded for the respondent.
Sections Cited
Section 19, Section 7, Section 7A, Section 61(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 13/12/2024
The accused-petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 483 B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.187/2024 registered at Police Station C.P.S. Jaipur, District ACB District for offence under Sections 7 & 7A of Prevention of Anti-corruption (Amendment) Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of B.N.S.
Heard.
[2024:RJ-JP:51438] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12998/2024]
Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the challan papers.
Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner Bhaw Singh submits that the allegations against him, who is a contractual employee, is that he has been handed over a bag with the amount of bribe by co-accused Devendra, who is a Sub-Inspector and is posted on deputation basis at GST Department. Allegations against the accused-petitioner Devendra is of demanding the bribe of Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter, acceptance of bribe of amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. Both the accused-petitioners are in custody since 03.09.2024. 5. On query put forth by this Court to the learned Public Prosecutor as regard the prosecution sanction qua the accused- petitioner Devendra, who is a Public Servant, he submits that the prosecution sanction has not been accorded so far.
Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act says that no Court shall take cognizance against the Public Servant in absence of a prosecution sanction given by competent authority for prosecuting such a Government Servant. Since, no prosecution sanction has been accorded by the competent authority as regard the prosecution of the accused-petitioner Devendra. In view of mandate of Section 19 of the PC Act, Court cannot take offence in the matter. For want of prosecution sanction keeping a person in custody for an indefinite period could not be said to be justified in any manner. In the present case, the accused-petitioner Devendra who is a Public Servant is in custody since 03.09.2024 and there is
[2024:RJ-JP:51438] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12998/2024] no prosecution sanction by the competent authority so far.
Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, requirement of prosecution sanction, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.
These bail applications are, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in connected file. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J DEEPA RANI -169-170
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.