@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Amitav Kumar Gupta, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 171(E) and 120(B) I.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was neither a candidate for the Rajya Sabha nor he was canvassing for any candidate and no material has been brought forward in course of investigation showing the complicity of this petitioner in the alleged crime; that the only allegation is that Badal Chandra Mandal, driver of Sita Soren had delivered the air bag to this petitioner. It is further submitted that it is not stated as to what incriminating article was in the air bag as the driver in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that it is presumed that there was money in the said bag and the statement of other witnesses u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is in contradiction to each other. It is also submitted that even if, for the sake of argument, it is presumed that the bag containing money was received by this petitioner then the offence u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not attracted against this petitioner as he is not a public servant and there is no allegation that the petitioner had ever received illegal gratification for himself or for any other person; that merely because the petitioner made calls to the M.L.A. it cannot be made basis for the prosecution; that Pawan Kumar Dhoot who had allegedly offered money to the M.L.A''s for securing vote has been charge-sheeted under the bailable sections whereas the petitioner who has no concern with transaction of money has been charge-sheeted for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act which is not made out.
3. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that Jaykant Kumar in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that co-accused Sita Soren had asked R.K. Agarwal to pay the first installment of Rs. 50.00 lakhs of the agreed amount of Rs. 1.5 crores as a condition for proposing his name as a candidate of Rajya Sabha and Rs. 50.00 lakhs was handed over on 18.03.2012 in an air bag to Sita Soren and the said air bag containing money was handed over to this petitioner; that the witness Jaykant Kumar also stated that on 30.03.2012 this petitioner along with other persons had gone to the residence of co-accused, Sita Soren and told her that he had taken 2.5 crores from Pawan Kumar Dhoot and asked her to vote for R.K. Agarwal and in favour of Pawan Kumar Dhoot; that the witness Vikash Kumar has stated that he was introduced to co-accused, Sita Soren by this petitioner and R.K. Agarwal had offered Rs. 30.00 lakhs as advance but Sita Soren had insisted to him to take Rs. 50.00 lakhs and the said money was taken by Sita Soren from the residence of Nalin Soren which was handed over to this petitioner and he has also stated about taking of Rs. 2.5 crores from one of the candidates and had advised Sita Soren to cast in favour of the person who paid Rs. 2.5 crores; that the witness, Badal Chandra Mandal, the driver of Sita Soren had stated that on 18.03.2012 he had taken Sita Soren to the house of M.L.A. Mathura Prasad and from there they went to the house of Nalin Soren and a bag was handed over to him and the said bag was lifted from the dickey of the car by this petitioner; that in course of investigation material has come that this petitioner was in continuous touch with the M.L.A. Sita Soren and he was a larger part of the conspiracy in the transaction of the money in the cash for vote for the independent candidate in the Rajya Sabha election and his complicity in the case is made out.
4. Considering the statement of the witnesses it is evident that the petitioner was a close confidant of co-accused, Sita Soren, one of the M.L.A''s to whom money was paid for casting vote in favour of the independent candidate and part of the money so realised was handed over to this petitioner which shows that he had received money on behalf of public servant. Thus, looking to the gravity of the offence I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. He is directed to surrender in the court below within a period of one week from the date of this order.
