CRIMINAL APPEAL 385 of 2020 on 29 December 2020

1. These bail applications under Section 439 a common FIR bearing ~o.16/2021 registered at Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur District, Jaipur, for offences under Sections 7 and 7* of the prevention of Corruption Act, ' ,. , 2018 and Section 120-6 ofiPC, hence, the same are being decided together by this common tt, \? -., 'order.

2. 1tt',<is-'contended Ax, by counsel for the petitioner - Manish Agarwal that in the written complaint filed .. I. by Iqbal Singh for demanding money from'th"e,-'~ffi.c&r r4r of KCC Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (for .- : :. . " -' ' , , A,,[, , ; ,.*.:. >,;. ?; ,PC+. . short "KCC") , narnez:ef .. the -. *officer, , ,k .I I - ,wh~,.mkt the petitioner is not mentioned. It is also cont&ded'fhat the allegation that a false FIR bearing No.385/2020 was registered at Police Station, Bandikui, is a false allegation as FIR. was lodged under Section 3044 IPC I 7. when one Engineer of KCC died due to electric-shock. It is also , - contended that the allegation that Amit Pathak met with the petitioner 3-4 days befoke'qeepawali and there again demand was . . 4. . .,*.. . 1- said to be raised is wrong as the petitioner never asked Amit -7 Pathak to meet Neeraj Meena and that Amit Pathak met Neerai - Meena on his own. It is also contended that Iqbal Singh and Amit Pathak met the petitioner on 29.12.2020 with hidden recorder provided by ACB. There is no demand in this transcript. It is argued that unless the demand is established, case cannot be proceeded against the petitioner. it is also contended that in the Of Neera~ Meena also, no incriminating material against the Present Petitioner. Out

3.

It is contended that there was a complaint against Pushkar Mittal and Pinky Meena also, the complaint was bifurcated into two FIRS, namely FIR No.16/2021, which is against the present petitioner and FIR No.17/2021, which is against SDM, Pinky Meena and Pushkar Mittal. It is also contended that Anti Corruption Bureau has recorded the statement of Baljeet Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in order to create evidence of demand and payment on previous occasions. It is also contended that the case of Jammu & Kashmir in FIR No.121/2013 is without any basis and in three complaints, no action has been taken. FIRS, namely FIR No.16/2021, which is against the present petitioner and FIR No.17/2021, which is against SDM, Pinky Meena and Pushkar Mittal. It is also contended that Anti Corruption Bureau has recorded the statement of Baljeet Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in order to create evidence of demand and payment on previous occasions. It is also contended that the case of Jammu & Kashmir in FIR No.121/2013 is without any basis and in three complaints, no action has been taken.

4, ~t ii also contended that the Bureau has recorded the statements of Rajendra Meena, SHO Mangi La11 SHO Banwarit which cannot be taken note of as the petitioner has initiated action against these SHOs and they havebfalsely implicated the petitioner. It is also contended that the documents pertaining to the agreement to sale are of the years 2016 and 2017, which are much before the date of the petitioner's posting at Dausa, $

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on I. ** , Sanjay Chandra Versus Central ~ureau of Investigation: (2012) 1 SCC 40. Reliance has ilso-.been placed on Shri p, Chidambaram Versus Central Bureau of investigation: Criminal Appeal N0.1603/2019 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashad] Versus State of U.P. & Anr.: Criminal Appeal No.159/2012, order passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Mist. Second Bail ~pplication NO. 15555/ 2020: Mahipal Choudhat-y Versus State of Rajasthan and order passed by the Coordinate Bench in S.B. Criminal Bail Application No.14050/2020: Rajendra Choudhary Versus State of Rajasthan. Reliance has also been placed on the order further passed by the Coordinate Bench in Narendra Mohan Versus Sfate ~er - ,qeeraj Meena conten~

he has nothing told ,p and =-ntended that the charge

01

?. Singh that name of petitioner - uCt the complaint made by complainant - Iqbal Singha It is contended that no complaint Was made in writing by Deepak, Kumar Saini and Reetu Singh -. with regard to demand of money for petitioner - Manish Agarwal. It is also contended that thk petitioner is working as Nature Conservationist, Environmentalist & Wildlife Protector. He has been falsely implicated due to ill-will and "0 incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is a sick person. Documents pertaining to ailment and treatment have been annexed with the bail application, it is also contended that in the bifurcated FIR N0.17/2021, Pushkar Mittal and Pinki Meena have been granted bail. 89 Learned Additional Advocate General a pea ring for the State, has opposed these bail applications. ~t is that from the of witnesses, it is evident that pe:i~.oi~ - Manish AgarwaI demanded amount from the and also demanded contended that S.10 lacs Per FIR. It is also me statemenl of the sHO that monthly mount also, it is evident "as dem awed f,- them by the Superintendent of Police. It is also contended that the .petitioner got the document of property under threat from Himanshu Sharma after arresting his father. It is also contended that the dumpers of the complainant company were seized by putting the Police Officer under undue pressure with intention to extort money from the complainant. In this regard, there are witnesses, who have deposed against the Superintendent of Police.

9. It is also contended that an anti corruption case was also lodged against the petitioner when he was posted in Jammu & Kashmir and there were other complaints against him as well. It is - also contended that petitioner Neeraj Meena was actively involved and was working as a conduit for the Superintendent of Police. His telephone was kept under surveillance and from the recording as well as from the transcript, it is evident that he was hand-in-glove with the Superintendent of Police and was collecting money for him.

10. It is also contended that fromathe statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is evident that bribe amount was paid to the Superintendent of Police and at this stage, statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be ignored. With regard to petitioner - Gopal Singh, it is colitended that he took money on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, which is evident from the statements of witnesses.

11. I have considered the contentions and have perused the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners.

12. Present is a case where there is a specific allegation against - the petitioner Manish Agarwal of demanding monthly amount from the complainant as well as Station House Officer. There is statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C., which shows that

Agar~al* From the 'anish money was paid to petitioner ~eeraj [Meena ][is ][also ]statement recorded, the role of petitioner working - as conduit for made out. It is borne out that he Was col~e~tinQ [money ][on ][his ]petitioner - Manish ~garwal and Was etc done of the Police behalf, He was also getting transfers etitioner ' Manish Agarwal. Officers by showing his proximity to P to demand of monthly His telephonic conversation also points ~anish Agarwal could amount by Manish .Agarwal -4 and that for the meeting. reduce the am&nt and that he could arrange with his mother also Telephonic -conversation of Neeraj Meena 4 I:, i'.< :.. . points to- money transactions with superintendent of Police* 13. I have perused the statement of witnesses. Complainant - Iqbai Singh, who is the: power k , of attorney of KCC. which was constructing express .highway, . . has, alleged that Rs.10 \acs per month was demanded by the Superintendent of Police - Manish Agarwal for police co-operation and Rs.10 lacs for settling the cases and ~s.4,000/- per dumper per month was also demanded. Baljeet Singh, Partner of M/s. Diamond Construction Company has also given statement that petitioner - Manish Agarwal demanded money and that he gave Rs.10 lacs to Neeraj Meena for giving to Manish Agarwal and later on, Sunil Kumar gave Rs.11 lacs to Neeraj Meena for giving to Manish Agarwal. Sunii Kumar has also given statement that he has given Rs. 11 iacs to Neeraj Meena for giving to Manish A garwal- Deepak Kumar Saini has also given under Section 164 Cr.P.C, that he gave RS, 15 Gopa' Singh for giving to Manish to Prem Prakash sharm8 has given that he was gat arrested and 2100 Moan yards Of land "as taken Manirh A~~~~~ a,,d a buuniari ua got constructed by him, H, al SO took b\a nk Papers for 507 quar yards of land and further took Rs.5 lacs. Akash Sharma has also given statement that Manish Agarwal got boundan/ wall constructed on the land. Statements of Sunil Kumar, Deepak Kumar, Jag Mohan Meena and Himanshu Sharma have been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., who have deposed against the Superintendent of Police. Further, there is also an anti corruption case pending against petitioner - Manish Agarwal in Jammu Kashmjr. There is evidence of witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which points out towards the demand of money and payment of money to Manish Agarwal through Neeraj Meena and Gopal Singh. Hurdles in the working of the Company were created by Manish Agarwal to extort money from the complainant and other Companies, who were involved in the construction of express highway. The involvement of Neeraj Meena is evident from the statement of the witnesses as well as his telephonic conversation.

14. There is specific allegation' against petitioner - Manish

14. There is specific allegation' against petitioner - Manish I I .(, : .: Agarwal of receiving $ribe fi-oni . the . complainant and other persons, who were cdnstfuttin$the &xpre'ss highway and further of demanding money. 'from the station House Officers. The judgments cited by the petitioners 'cannot be applied to the facts of the present case as there is every likelihood of the petitioner winning over the witnesses and as the witnesses are Officers, who were his subordinate. Further, some of the witnesses have deposed before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr,P.C., which cannot be disbelieved at this stage, hence, I am not inclined to allow the bail application of petitioner - Manish Agarwal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Similarly, the involvement of petitioner - Neeraj Meena is also evident from the statements of his bail application hence, is accordingly witnesses as well as his call recording' the same also deserves to be rejected and though there dismissed. - =opal singh concerned' 15, As far as he gave [RS. ][15 ][lacs to Gopal ]is e"i$ence of Deepak Kumar that , but name of Gopal Singh is sir$? I for giving to Manish ~garw~', ~eepak Kumar never not appearing in the initial complaint and h. Hence I bail application approached the ACD -against GOP~~ Sing. of Gopal singhdeseNes , ,.,* to be allowed and the same is . . allowed. It. is, therefore, directed that accused petitioner - Gopal f-' he furnishes a personal Singh be released On bail provided bond in the sum of ~s.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of ~~.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 16, 1" the result, 5.8. Criminal Misc. Bail Application . N0.4694/2021 - Gopal Singh Versus State of Rajasthan is allowed and 5.8. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.3605/2021 - Manishl Agarwal State of Rajasthan and 5044/2021 - Neeraj Meera, Versus state Of Rajasthan are dismis~ed However it is made that petitioners - I Manish 'garwal and Neeraj Meena would be free to move bail application before the Of the statements Concerned Court aftet 2 Of the statements Principal witnesses. The1 Of the principal witnesses basis, recorded on prio~v