The court reiterated that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial and not to punish or prevent him. The court also held that the seriousness of the charge is a relevant consideration in bail applications but that it is not the only factor to be considered.

Vijay Kumar Vyas, J.

1. Since all the bail petitions arise out of the same FIR, they are decided by this common order.

2. These bail petitions have been filed u/s 439 Cr. P.C. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.422/2014 dated 3.12.2014 for the offences u/s 13(2) read with section 13(1) (C)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "Act of 1988") and 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

3. On 9.5.2013, complainant Ram Saran submitted a written complaint to the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur alleging, inter alia, that Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) issued a single patta in favour of M/s Ganpati Construction in illegal manner and the land ad-measuring 3.43 Hector, situated in Todi Ramjanipura has been allotted to the company in a conspiracy. The complainant levelled charges of irregularity, corruption and misuse of post and power against the accused Bheem Sain Garg, Shailendra Garg, Vijay Mehta and the officers of J.D.A. and Urban Development Housing Department (hereinafter to be referred as "UDH department"). A preliminary enquiry No.15/2014 was registered and conducted. On the basis of report of preliminary enquiry, FIR No. 42/2014 was registered. During investigation, Shailendra Garg, partner of M/s Ganpati Construction and Nishkam Diwakar - the then Deputy Secretary - II, UDH department, were arrested and charge sheeted on 01.12.2015 for offences u/s 13(1)(C)(D) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and Section 409, 420 and 120B IPC. Investigation was kept pending u/s 173(8), Cr. P.C. against co-accused Vijay Mehta, Anil Agarwal, G.S. Sandhu, Onkar Mal Saini and B .M. Kapoor. After arrest of Vijay Mehta - the then President of Rajendra Nagar Adarsh Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti, G.S. Sandhu - the then Principal Secretary, UDH department, Onkar Mal Saini - the then Deputy Commissioner, Zone-10, JDA, a supplementary charge sheet dated 8.7.2016 was filed before the concerned court for offences u/s 13(1) (C) (D), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

4. It is alleged that the Executive Committee of Rajendra Nagar, Adarsh Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti took decision to purchase the land for Durga Vihar Scheme of the Society and 175 plots were allotted to the members of the Society. In the year 1997, the land of two Khasra numbers came under acquisition. Plot holders were unaware whether their plots were under acquisition or not. Taking advantage of this situation, Bheem Sain Garg purchased almost all the plots of the Society in the name of M/s Ganpati Construction. Bheem Sain Garg by manipulating proceedings and meeting of the Society, including his son in the Board of Directors in the year 2003.

5. An amended Patta was issued on 4.6.2005 by Housing Society in favour of M/s Ganpati Construction Company. Prior to that, M/s Ganpati Construction Company moved an application before the JDA to issue him a Single Patta of the whole Chunk of land. The request was considered on 7.5.2005 by the 82nd Building Plan Committee and acceded and the matter was moved to the State Government for in principal approval of the decision. The then Principal Secretary, UDH Department did not approve the decision and accordingly request was rejected on 18.10.2005. Bheem Sain Garg died in the year 2009. His son Shailendra Garg again submitted an application dated 16.9.2010 to re-consider the decision. On this application, accused Niskam Diwakar, Deputy Secretary, UDH Department called for a factual report from JDA. In compliance, factual report was sent to the UDH Department by the Secretary of JDA. It was informed through factual report that earlier such request has been turned down in the year 2005. Thereafter, in the comments of Deputy Town Planner, it was suggested to obtain legal opinion prior to deviate from the prevalent policy. It is alleged that instead of obtaining any legal opinion, accused Niskam Diwakar submitted the file before G.S.