HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 7758/2022

Kailash Chand Bohra S/o Shri Sohan Singh, Aged About 54

Years, R/o Vill Tosina, Police Station Khunkhuna, Tehsil

Deedwana, District Nagaur, Presently Residing At 49, Sen Colony,

Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur Rajasthan At Present Assistant

Police Station Commissioner Offences Against Woman

Investigation Cell, Jaipur (East) ( Presently Lodged In Central Jail

Jaipur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. V.R. Bajwa, SR. Adv.assisted by

Mr. Sneh Deep Khayaliya

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, AAG

Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Order

Reserved on ::

13/01/2023

Pronounced on ::

17/01/2023

1.

Accused/petitioner has filed this third bail application

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

2.

F.I.R. No.80/2021 was registered at Police Station Anti

Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for offence under Sections 7 of

Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Sections

354, 354-A, 354-B, 376-C of I.P.C.

3.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the

second bail application was dismissed by this Court on

11.02.2022. Thereafter, there is substantial change in

(2 of 3)

[CRLMB-7758/2022]

circumstances. It is contended that an FIR was lodged on behalf of

the petitioner against the complainant of this case for blackmailing

and extortion and video and audio was also submitted before the

police authorities, wherein victim of this case was demanding

Rs.51 lakh. It is also contended that no work was pending with the

petitioner rather he had asked the police authorities to arrest

Yashraj Bharadwaj against whom the victim has lodged complaint

which is evident from the statement of the witnesses recorded

before the Court.

4.

It is further contended that the petitioner has remained

in custody for a period of one year and ten months. A case has

been made up against the petitioner on account of departmental

rivalry. It is contended that the call recording made at the time of

trap is doctored document as it does not have the recording of the

petitioner when he made three calls during the period 12:01 to

12:15 pm which is alleged time of the raid. It is also contended

that the victim of this case is in a habit of lodging false cases

against persons to extract money. In majority of the cases in

which victim has lodged complaint against individuals, police has

submitted negative final report or the victim has entered into a

compromise.

5.

Learned AAG has opposed the third bail application. It

is contended that the earlier application was dismissed by this

Court on 11.02.2022 on merits. It is also contended that

petitioner used his office for seeking sexual favours from the

victim.

6.

I have considered the contentions.

7.

The victim in this case has alleged that she has given

(3 of 3)

[CRLMB-7758/2022]

Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner in five installments of Rs.10,000/-

each. An application has been filed by the victim for registering

the case against her under the Anti Corruption Act. It is contended

that three outgoing calls were made by the petitioner on

14.03.2021 from 12:03 to 12:06 pm for duration of 20 seconds,

17 seconds and 21 seconds respectively, however, no recording

thereof is audible in the tape recorder, wherein the incident was

recorded. The chances of this document being doctored cannot be

thus ruled out.

8.

Taking note of the same, as also the fact that the victim

has lodged police complaint against different persons regarding

sexual favours, in which police has submitted negative final report

and the victim herself has withdrawn the complaint on the basis of

compromise, also taking note of the fact that petitioner has

remained in custody for a period of one year and ten months