Akshay Sharma S/O Shri Totaram vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court considered the material on record and the facts and circumstances of the case. It was of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court allowed the bail application. The petitioner was directed to be admitted to bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The office was instructed to send a copy of the order to the concerned trial Court via e-mail/fax for necessary compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, Akshay Sharma, posted as Superintendent GST Division Sikar, Rajasthan, is seeking a second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. He was arrested in connection with FIR No. 22/2020 registered at the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Jaipur Chowki, Jhunjhunu, for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. A charge-sheet has since been filed for offences under Sections 7 and 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and Section 120B of the IPC. The petitioner claims he has been falsely implicated, no amount was recovered from his possession, and the allegation is that he took a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- through a co-accused, Suresh Swami. The co-accused has already been released on bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the alleged false implication and non-recovery of bribe amount. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case and no bribe amount was recovered from his possession. He further contended that the allegation of taking a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- was through a co-accused, Suresh Swami, who has already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The petitioner also submitted that the charge-sheet has been presented, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus, continued custody would serve no useful purpose. Respondent's Contentions: The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.