[2025:RJ-JP:6859] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13660/2023 Abdul Hakeem S/o Habib Khan, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Garampura, Lakheri, District Bundi, Presently Suspended Police Inspector, Police Line, Karauli (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Dr. Prerna Shekhawat W/o Sanjay Hada, R/o House No. C-42 Talwandi Kota, Presently Addtional Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kota (Rural), Kota (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/02/2025 1. The instant application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of his arrest in connection with FIR No.207/2021 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur Chowki ACB Kota (Rural) for offences under Sections 13(1) (B) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has false been implicated in this case. He submits that the accused petitioner has been booked by ACB for allegedly accumulating disproportionate assets (DA). He submits that as per the FIR, accused petitioner, who was initially appointed as [2025:RJ-JP:6859] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13660/2023] Constable and was holding the post of Police Inspector in the year 2021, had enriched himself illicitly and was in possession of disproportionate assets, which was 159 percent of his known sources of income but during investigation, it has come out that the so-called disproportionate assets was only 49.63% of his known source of income. He further submits that the petitioner has already joined the investigation in term of the interim order dated 18.03.2024 and has submitted all the required documents and information to the investigating agency and as such, he is no more required for any custodial interrogation. He argues that in an identical case, benefit of pre-arrest bail has been granted to an accused by High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide order dated 02.08.2024 passed in A.B.A No.4142/2024. With these submissions, he craves indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He has submitted a factual report dated 06.02.2025 and contends that in the investigation so far conducted, alleged offences have been found proved against the petitioner and that investigation is still going on. There is serious allegation against the petitioner that he enriched himself illicitly during check period i.e., from 1986 to 2021 and created disproportionate wealth (moveable and immoveable properties) in comparison to his known source of income. The petitioner was not having any immovable property in his name prior to 1986 but thereafter, he accumulated wealth illegally. He argues that for completing investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. It is also contended by learned Public Prosecutor that one other [2025:RJ-JP:6859] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13660/2023] FIR No.141/2020 for offences under Sections 342, 323, 34 IPC has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Lakheri which is pending trial. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perusing the material available on record, without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR and the result of investigation, so far conducted, wherein, it has come out that several movable and immovable properties (Lands, buildings and plots etc.) are found in the name of the petitioner and his family members, I am not inclined to grant benefit of pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner. As per investigation, there was no moveable or immoveable property in the name of the petitioner prior to check period i.e. 1986. The petitioner was initially appointed as Constable and during the check period i.e., from 1986 to 2021, he has been found in possession of properties well in excess of his known source of income. Several monetary transactions of lacks of rupees have also been found taking place between wife of the petitioner and some other persons. Investigation is still going on. Thus, I am not inclined to extend indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner. Accordingly, the instant pre-arrest bail application is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /752