[2025:RJ-JP:2084] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 559/2025 Adarsh Yogi S/o Shri Vikram Nath, Aged About 29 Years, Presently R/o Jagdish Mandovra Ka Makaan, Mahesh Nagar, Chittorgarh And Permanent Resident Of Chandko Ki Bagichi, Maliyo Ka Mohalla, Natthusar Bas, Bikaner (Raj.) The Then Inspector, Central Narcotics Bureau, Chittorgarh (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Prashant Chaturvedi Ms. Nandini Chaturvedi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/01/2025 1. This second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.RC0302024A0010/2024 registered at Police Station CBI Jaipur, District SPE Jaipur for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 and Section 61(2) of BNS. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the court concerned. 2. First bail application (No.16004/2024) was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh bail application after filing of charge sheet in the court concerned. Now, charge sheet has been filed in the matter. Hence, this second bail application. [2025:RJ-JP:2084] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-559/2025] 3. Learned counsel representing the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that neither any bribe was demanded by the petitioner from the complainant nor any recovery was effected from the possession of the petitioner. It is also submitted that there is no transcript to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. As per prosecution case, the recovery of the bribe amount has been allegedly effected from one Keshav Kasara and no evidence is collected showing that accused-petitioner was in contact with the said person. He also contends that there is every possibility that the said Keshav Kasara was having any nexus with the complainant side in order to entangle the petitioner in this false case. 4. Learned counsel contends that as per order sheet dated 09.01.2025 drawn before Learned Special Judge, CBI Jaipur, it is clear that till date no prosecution sanction has been accorded so as to prosecute the accused petitioner for the alleged offence. He argues that even after filing charge sheet in the court concerned, cognizance has not been taken in the matter and same been posted for 22.01.2025 for filing prosecution sanction and till then, the judicial custody of the petitioner is extended. He submits that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act bars the Court from taking cognizance against a public servant except of the previous sanction of the competent authority. Without there being any prosecution sanction by effect of which, cognizance cannot be taken against the petitioner, further custody of the petitioner cannot be said to be legal in any manner. He argues that [2025:RJ-JP:2084] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-559/2025] cognizance is a condition precedent for extending judicial custody of the accused after filing result of investigation but in the case at hand, the investigation agency has not taken prosecution sanction and therefore, his continuation in judicial custody is not warranted. 5. Learned counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2024 and charge-sheet has been filed and as such no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite time period. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments:- (i). Prakhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. : (2020) 11 SCC 648 (ii). Indra Singh Rao v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No.6527/2021, decided on 13.0.2021 (iii). Mahesh Chand Gupta v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7648/2024, decided on 07.08.24) & (iv) Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andra Pradesh, reported in 1979 (4) SCC 172 With these submissions, learned counsel craves indulgence of bail. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner but they could not dispute the fact that prosecution sanction has not been issued till date. It is, however, submitted that delay in filing prosecution sanction will not entitle the petitioner to get bail. They submit that even other prosecution [2025:RJ-JP:2084] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-559/2025] sanction is not necessary in the present case as the petitioner was not discharging any official duties. It is contended that first bail application was dismissed on 02.01.2025 and except filing of charge sheet in the court concerned, there is no change in the circumstances. It is also contended that the proposal for issuance of prosecution sanction has already been sent to the competent authority and there is no delay on the part of the State Authorities. It is contended that investigation for ascertaining role of other individuals is going on. Other accused persons are absconding. They also submit that investigation is also being conducted to see whether any cartel/racket running in Central Bureau Investigation is going on. Apprehension that the petitioner may win over the witnesses is also expressed by learned State Counsel. It is further argued that Court should be more careful in granting bail in case of economic offences. Reliance has been placed on Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v Central Bureau of Investigation : 2013 0 AIR (SC) (Cri) 1286 and K. Kalimuthu v State of by D.S.P. : 2005 (3) Supreme 173. 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that till date, prosecution sanction has not been issued so as to prosecute the accused petitioner for the alleged offences, which is a condition precedent for extending judicial custody; Section 19 of the P.C. Act bars the court from taking cognizance against a public servant except of previous sanction of the competent authority; the [2025:RJ-JP:2084] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-559/2025] petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2024; charge sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 9. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Adarsh Yogi S/o Shri Vikram Nath, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 10. The petitioner shall surrender his passport and will not leave India without previous permission of the Court and he will not temper with evidence or win over any witnesses. 11. The observation made hereinabove is just for decision of this bail application and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /458