CRLMB/12745/2026 of UTTAM PANDEY S/O JAGDAMBA PRASAD PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 24 August 2026

Order

24/08/2026

1. The present 2nd bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Uttam Pandey S/o Jagdamba Prasad Pandey, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No. 58/2026 dated 02.03.2026 registered at P.S. C.P.S, Jaipur District-ACB District (ACB Chowki Sikar), for the offence under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the

(2 of 5) [CRLMB-5975/2026] investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with trial which will take time.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was posted as Head Constable, CRPF, Battalion 92, and currently in the office of ED, Chandigarh, wherein he visited the Sikar in relation to inquiry, wherein he was trapped by ACB. He also submitted that present petitioner, is in custody since his arrest on 28.02.2026, and a charge-sheet has already been filed after concluding investigation, but trial Court has not been proceeded, primarily on the ground that till date prosecution sanction has not been received by the ACB. He also submitted that petitioner has already undergone period of custody more than as prescribed under Section 167(2) of CrPC (corresponding Section 187 of BNSS). He also referred delay in criminal proceedings and submitted that no change in circumstances is possible until a cognizance order is passed by the trial court and present petitioner cannot be kept behind bar for indefinite period. He also referred order dated 12.08.2026 in 2nd Bail Application No. 10849/2026, Dr. Rakesh Kaloria Vs. State of Rajasthan, and order dated 20.08.2026 Dr. Yogesh Sharma S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 13103/2026 and submitted that only on the ground that prosecution sanction has not been received, the accused were granted bail.

(3 of 5) [CRLMB-5975/2026]

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and submitted a reply on behalf of ACB and also submitted that ACB has submitted charge sheet on 27.04.2026 and made a request for prosecution sanction on 24.04.2026 to competent authority, but same has been returned with certain objections and now it has been resubmitted on 16.08.2021 as per SOP of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

6. The bail application of present petitioner was considered by this Court on 06.05.2026 and with following order we have dismissed the bail application:-

6. On the basis of complaint made to ACB by complainant Rameez Raja regarding threat, intimidation and demand of bribe to settle a case pending at ED Chandigarh, an amount of ₹20,00,000/- was demanded, which was later reduced to ₹18,00,000/-. After due verification, a trap was planned and the petitioner-accused was caught red- handed while accepting bribe of ₹13,00,000/- from complainant. A FIR No. 58/2026 dated 02.03.2026 was registered at Police Station CPS, Jaipur under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended, 2018).

7. There is no dispute that the present petitioner is posted as Senior Constable at ED Office, Chandigarh, and he is accepting bribe on behalf of a senior officer. The charge- sheet submitted by ACB clearly indicates that the petitioner-accused has already accepted cash of ₹13,00,000/-, and same were recovered, hence, charge- sheet under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended) 2018 has been forwarded for trial. The ACB has kept investigation pending against Atul Gupta, Assistant Director, ED Chandigarh. However, despite several communications by the investigating officer of ACB, he has not appeared for investigation. These facts are specifically mentioned in the charge-sheet. It is a very serious issue that a suspect has not appeared despite summons by an anti-graft agency.

8. The Prevention of Corruption Act was amended in the year 2018 to strengthen the existing legal framework and to address the limitations under the Act of 1988 regarding effective prosecution of corrupt officials. The

(4 of 5) [CRLMB-5975/2026] primary object is to align the operation of law while creating a robust mechanism to deter both public servant(s) and those involved in offering bribe. The amendment has widened the definition of corruption and broadened the scope of accountability. The individuals named during investigation are required to appear before the investigating officer and in case of failure, it is the duty of ACB to take strict and coercive steps so that the investigation may be concluded at the earliest. It is also duty of ACB to ensure that a junior level person is not made a scapegoat between the demand and expectation of senior officer while collecting bribe through such junior level person.

9. Considering the gravity of offence and the material available on record, I am of the considered view that when an agency is assigned with the duty to act in accordance with law, then it is bound to act in accordance with law and any extortion or intimidation in the name of implication is not permissible.

7. The petitioner-accused is in custody since his arrest and till date the prosecution sanction has not been received. The reply submitted by the ACB clearly indicate that a charge sheet drawn on 24.04.2026 has been filed on 27.04.2026. The first proposal for prosecution sanction was submitted to the competent authority for prosecution sanction on 05.05.2026 and, after return of the same due to certain objections, re- submission was made on 16.08.2026. The ACB has also sent a reminder on 19.08.2026, therefore, it is apparent on the face of record that prosecution sanction has not been granted by the competent authority and, in wake of Section 19, it is not possible to proceed in the matter.

8. Very recently, we have allowed bail application of Dr. Rakesh Kaloria (supra) on 12.08.2026 and Dr. Yogesh Sharma (supra) on 20.08.2026. After considering the fact that there was delay in grant of prosecution sanction or in processing to acquire prosecution sanction, therefore, the

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-5975/2026] petitioner is entitled to bail solely on ground that for last more than 5 and a half months no prosecution sanction has been received after the proceeding initiated by ACB and after almost 4 months of filing of charge sheet.

9. Thus, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant-accused Uttam Pandey S/o Jagdamba Prasad Pandey, is hereby allowed and the applicant-accused is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner.

(ii) The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law.

(iii) The applicant-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court.

(iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicant-accused shall be liable to be canceled.

10. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 31/MONU