[2025:RJ-JP:23268] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5284/2025 Manish Kumar Jangir S/o Shri Mahipal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ghardhanakhurd, Thana Singhana Districtjhunjhunu. At Present Constable No. 2197 Thana Dadabadi District Kota City. (Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6861/2025 Banveer Acharya S/o Shri Radhakishan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Rajputo Ka Mohalla, Village Dhandholi, Police Station Dudo, District Jaipur. At Present Constable 1452 Police Station Dadabari, District Kota City (Rajasthan) (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mst. Sanju Saini with Mr. Dharmendra Joshi, Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary, Mr. Akshay Dadhich & Mr. Gokul Gupta Mr. Rahul Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA (V. J.) Order 16/06/2025 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioners in connection with FIR No.84/2025 registered with C.P.S. Jaipur, ACB District for the offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023. [2025:RJ-JP:23268] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5284/2025] 2. Learned counsels for the accused-petitioners submit that the accused-petitioners are in custody since 03.04.2025 and after completion of investigation, the Police has submitted charge-sheet in the matter. 3. Learned counsels further submit that till date no prosecution sanction has been accorded by the Competent Authority so as to prosecute the accused-petitioners for the alleged offence. They also submits that in absence of the prosecution sanction, the learned trial Court cannot even take cognizance against the accused-petitioners under the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and in such circumstances, keeping the accused-petitioners in custody for indefinite period would not justified. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications and submits that the accused-petitioners have been caught red handed for taking bribe. 5. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 clearly speaks that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act in the case of Government servant until and unless the Competent Authority has accorded prosecution sanction. In the present case, no prosecution sanction is said to have been given by the Competent Authority and in such circumstance, keeping the accused-petitioners in custody for indefinite period may not be justified. [2025:RJ-JP:23268] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5284/2025] 6. Having regard to the submissions made by counsels for the accused-petitioners and the fact that the accused-petitioners are in custody since 03.04.2025 and no prosecution sanction has been given by the Competent Authority so far so as to prosecute the accused-petitioners who are Government servant, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 7. Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 483 of the BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners named above in connection with the aforesaid FIR shall be enlarged on bail provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA (V. J.)),J Ashish Kumar /99-100