Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 1221
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sameer Jain, J.
Puneet Mohnot – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8721/2022
Decided On : 21-06-2022
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Application
Headnote
Prevention of Corruption Act - Chartered Accountant - The court considered whether the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act could be applied to a private person, specifically a Chartered Accountant, and concluded that the Act cannot be invoked against a private person who is not a public servant.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, was arrested in connection with an FIR for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The petitioner claimed to have been falsely implicated due to vindictiveness on the part of the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused-petitioner, being a Chartered Accountant and not a public servant, could not be implicated under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court also noted the absence of criminal antecedents and professional relationship with the complainant.
Issues: Application of Prevention of Corruption Act to a private person, false implication, and bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the accused-petitioner was not a public servant and the absence of criminal antecedents, leading to the conclusion that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be invoked against a private person in this case.
Final Decision: The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the accused-petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.
Key Points: - The accused-petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and not a public servant, so the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be applied against him (!) (!) (!) . - The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed due to the absence of criminal antecedents and professional services rendered to the complainant (!) (!) . - The accused was ordered to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties (!) . - The complaint was filed based on alleged vindictiveness by the complainant after the petitioner was removed from services (!) (!) . - No public officials were implicated in the case, and no proceedings were contemplated against them (!) .
What is the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act to a private person who is not a public servant?
What are the grounds for allowing bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in this case?
What is the professional relationship between the accused and the complainant in this case?
Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv, for the Appellant
Mr. Rajendra Yadav, Ga-Cum-Aag With, Mr. Suresh Kumar, Pp, for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner Puneet Mohnot S/o Shri Arjun Raj Mohnot. The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No.205/2022 registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan Jaipur, District Jaipur for the offence(s) under Section 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that his client is a Chartered Accountant who was serving the complainant. On account of certain reasons, he was removed from the services. He further submits that on account of vindictiveness on the part of the complainant, who was his client, he has been falsely implicated in the case. As per him, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not applicable upon him as he is not a public servant. He has further submitted that action qua him is premature. No action upon him can be made out, specially when none of the public officials are implicated in the present matter or any proceedings/criminal action is contemplated against them. He has further submitted that the applicant-petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor/GA-cum-AAG has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there is recovery of Rs.2 lakhs qua the petitioner/applicant which is more than enough to attract the provisions under Section 7A of the said Act.
4. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record and without commenting on merits of the case, this court is of the view that applicantpetitioner is a Chartered Accountant and not a public servant. Thus provisions of PCA Act cannot be involved against a private person alone, is a question worth consideration. Further, the applicant-petitioner was rendering his professional services to the complainant two years prior from the date of occurrence and he has no criminal antecedents. In light of the above, this court deems it appropriate to enlarge him on bail.
5. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Puneet Mohnot S/o Shri Arjun Raj Mohnot shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
