Ajay Kumar Sharda vs State of Raj.

Nisha Gupta, J.—All these three bail applications arise out of common FIR, hence decided by this common order.

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Sharda, son of petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda, Mr. Deepak Sharma, brother of petitioner Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Sushil Kanwar, wife of petitioner Hemraj Kanawat, Mr. Hardayal Singh, Dy. S.P., ACB, Jaipur being the Investigating Officer and perused the material on record.

Earlier, application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda that he should be allowed to argue himself but today, Shri Ashutosh Sharda son of petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda has submitted that he is ready to argue and his father is not in a position to argue the case and he does not want to press the application (8330/2014 dated 14.7.2014), hence the application is disposed of accordingly.

The contention on behalf of the petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda is that he has not demanded any money. Nothing has been recovered at his instance. He has not done anything in pursuance of the demand, no witnesses has stated anything against him directly or indirectly. Charge-sheet has been filed. The Investigating Agency has drawn assumptions and there is no legal evidence against the petitioner. He has been implicated only on the strength of three transcripts; one is of 16.3.2013 in which three numbers have been asked from petitioner Hem Raj Kanawat. Name of these candidates does not appear in the final merit list and apart from it the conversation has taken place on 16.3.2013 whereas the result was to declare in April, 2014 and there was a long gap inspite of this no benefit has been taken by the petitioner. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner which could connect the petitioner with the incident that he took any money or benefit to get selected the candidates in Lower Division Clerk Examination in the Ajmer Judgeship.

The other contention on behalf of petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda is that allegation against the petitioner is that in one case under NDPS Act relating to Ramesh, he misused the office and after taking bribe, judgment of acquittal has been passed but there is no evidence on the record to connect the petitioner with this crime. He has been implicated only on the strength of one conversation with Hemraj Kanawat dated 3.4.2013 in which Hem Raj has requested to list the matter after 5th. Kumar Singh and Pradeep Kumar who were the Advocates in the matter have been released on bail and it has specifically been held by the Court that there is no evidence on record which shows that any corrupt practices has been used. Initially, he was not arrested thereafter under the pressure of the advocates, he has been arrested. Trial will take time. Co-accused Hitesh has been discharged and other many accused have been bailed out. As regards the allegation of accepting Induction Cooker, the concerned officer has specifically stated that money has been paid to him. The Investigating Officer is not clear about the role of the accused persons as some of the persons who were earlier witnesses in the matter has been made accused in subsequent charge-sheets. The petitioner is ill, he is suffering from the disease of Pancreatices since 2007, he remained in I.C.U. for 27 days at that time and he is suffering from other diseases also. His further contention is that provisions of Section 41A Cr.P.C. has not been complied with and reliance has been placed on Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. decided on 2.7.2014; and Ku. Hema Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & ors. decided by the Supreme Court on 16.1.2014 and his contention is that the petitioner be released on bail.

The contention on behalf of petitioner Rajesh Sharma is that he is behind the bars from last 17-18 months, co-accused Abdul Razzak has been released on bail. Charges have been framed. In total 19 persons have been bailed out, trial will take time, hence the petitioner be released on bail.

The contention of petitioner Hemraj Kanawat is that he is behind the bars from last 17-18 months. He is the only bread-earner in his family. Only Rs. 1.80 lac has been recovered which was the sale proceeds of gram and other agricultural produce. He has also submitted written arguments and submitted that co-accused Abdul Razzak has been allowed bail, hence he be released on bail

Per contra, the contention on behalf of ACB is that all the three persons have actively participated in the offence. They are the conspirators and petitioners Hemraj Kanawat and Rajesh Sharma have approached the candidates and collected money from them to get them passed in Lower Division Clerk Examinations held in Ajmer Judgeship. Hemraj Kanawat was the Advocate and Rajesh Sharma was Nazir in Nasirabad Court and petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda was the District Judge at the relevant time. Bhagwan Singh was other Advocate at Ajmer and Bhagwan Singh, Hemraj Kanawat and Rajesh Sharma has contacted the prospective candidates who had appeared in LDC Examinations and collected money from them to get them passed in LDC Examinations and contention of the State is that the role of the petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda is conspicuously clear from the conversation between the present petitioner and Hemraj Kanawat, he has asked for the roll numbers from Hemraj Kanawat and during interrogation of Hemraj Kanawat, he has disclosed the fact that one candidate Amar Kumar stands on the merit list No. 85. Admittedly, Hemraj Kanawat was interrogated on 27.4.2013 and till that date, the result was not declared and during investigation when merit list has been obtained from the Department, it shows that Amar Kumar Roll No. 91 stands on merit 85 which clearly shows connivance between petitioner Hemraj Kanawat and Ajay Kumar Sharda. One other incident has also been stated on behalf of the State that on 8.4.2013, Ajay Kumar Sharda has called his IV Class employee Ganesh from his residence phone, thereafter Ganesh Singh called Hemraj Kanawat and instructed him to call the petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda on land line, immediately Hemraj Kanawat called the petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda on his land line phone and on that day Ajay Kumar Sharda has instructed Hemraj Kanwat to "give to" Ganesh and contention of the State is that the call details clearly speaks that there was connivance between Hemraj and Ajay Kumar Sharda. Furthermore, the contention of the State is that apart from the corruption as regards the LDC examinations there are number of instances of corruption against the petitioner Ajay Kumar in appointment of Class-IV at Kishangarh and Vijaynagar Courts. Petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda has accepted bribe to allow pre-arrest bail to Radheyshyam Sharma and Nenu Ram. Petitioner has also accepted the bribe and in Rent Control Appeal, he accepted bribe to decide it in favour of Vimal Chand Jain and in N.D.P.S. Act cases, the judgment of acquittal was passed after accepting the bribe and this fact is verified by the conversation dated 3.4.2013 on which Hemraj Kanawat has instructed the petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda to fix the date after 5th. Hemraj Kanwat was not the counsel in the mater, hence there was no occasion for Hemraj Kanawat to instruct Ajay Kumar Sharda to fix the date 5th which clearly shows the connivance of the two. Apart from it on 6.4.2013 Hemraj has contacted the wife of Ajay Kumar Sharda and instructed him that in case relating to Dargah, the date of 11th should be fixed and conversation as regards transfer of Chetan has also taken place between wife of the petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda and petitioner Hemraj Kanawat. The conversation between Bhagwan Singh and Hemraj Kanawat also shows that money has been paid for selection of the candidates in LDC Examinations and also to get the judgments in favour of particular party. During investigation, it has also been revealed that between Bhagwan Singh and Rajesh Sharma conversation have taken place for 31 times and Bhagwan Singh and Hemraj Kanawat has talked for 106 times which clearly shows the connivance of the petitioner with each other. Further contention of the State is that prosecution sanction for all the instances referred above has been awarded against the petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda and his further contention is that during investigation, when Rajesh Sharma has been apprehended Rs. 14 lac along with slips of roll numbers have been recovered from his possession and the roll numbers were identical which were on the slips recovered from the possession of Hemraj Kanawat and for which conversation between Ajay Kumar Sharda and Hemraj Kanawat has taken place. The contention of the State is that conversation between the petitioners and Bhagwan Singh etc. clearly shows that all were involved in the game of corruption. Further contention of the State is that Rajesh Sharma was the Nazir at the relevant time. He was in constant touch with the petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharda and from his possession, 14.10 lacs has been recovered along with slips on which roll number of different candidates were written and also the papers of Hindi and English has been recovered, hence connivance of Rajesh Sharma and Hemraj Kanawat is strongly established and earlier his activities have been watched. On 23.4.2013 the petitioner Hemraj Kanawat first went to the residence of District Judge, thereafter he went to the residence of Bhagwan Singh then Rajesh Sharma also reached there and thereafter, he has been apprehended and from his possession slip of roll numbers of different candidates appeared in the examination have been recovered and spontaneously he has stated that these names have been given to him by Bhagwan Singh and he has also gave these roll numbers to Ajay Kumar Sharda to get them selected in the examinations. 1.83 lac has also been recovered from his possession.

As regards petitioner Hemraj Kanawat, the contention of the State is that his role is conspicuous. He has collected money from the various prospective candidates with the connivance of Bhagwan Singh and Rajesh Sharma and money has been recovered from him. His role has also been found in the selection of Class-IV employees at Kishangarh and Vijaynagar and other matters relating to corruption of Ajay Kumar Sharda and contention of the State is that looking to the gravity and involvement of the petitioners, they should not be released on bail.

Without going into the merits of the case but looking to the above facts which speaks clearly involvement of the petitioners, it is not a fit case to release the petitioners on bail. It is true that some accused Suresh Kumar, Vipin Parashar and Om Prakash etc. have been released on bail but there was a peculiar circumstance that they were firstly presented as prosecution witnesses and thereafter they have been stated as accused. The circumstances and facts of the case clearly shows the involvement of petitioners Ajay Kumar Sharda, Hemraj Kanawat and Rajesh Sharma that they were involved in the corrupt practices in the selection and examinations of LDC and instances have also been shown of involvements of petitioners in the selection of Class-IV in the case of Kishangarh and Vijaynagar and also for getting favourable judgments in N.D.P.S. Act case and matter of pre-arrest bail etc.

Hence, in view of the above, all these three bail applications are dismissed.