[2026:RJ-JP:22766] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4008/2026 Niril Kumar S/o Shri G.h. Sinhani, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 34 Nandpuri Colony, 22 Godam, Jaipur, Erstwhile Superintending Engineer (Civil), PHED Jaipur At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma Mr. Vijay Yadav, AGA Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 1. Date of conclusion of arguments 27.05.2026 2. Date on which the order was reserved 27.05.2026 3. Whether the full order or only operative part is pronounced Full 4. Date of pronouncement 01.06.2026 1. Petitioner-Niril Kumar S/o Shri G.h. Sinhani has filed instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023, who was arrested by the police in connection with the FIR No.245/2024 dated 30.10.2024 registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, ACB, Jaipur, District Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 7(C), 9, 10, 13(1)(A) read with Section 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended upto 2018) and Sections 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, the bail application was moved [2026:RJ-JP:22766] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4008/2026] before the learned Trial Court which came to be rejected by impugned order dated 07.03.2026. 2. Mr. Vipin Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil), was not a member of any committee and therefore, had no direct role in the entire tender process in question as alleged in the FIR. He further submitted that the contents of the FIR shows that PHED received certain complaints, one by Mr. Padam Singh dated 16.02.2023 made to ACS, PHED and another by Mr. Mahesh Kalwania, Advocate through his legal notice dated 16.03.2023 and 20.03.2023 sent on behalf of his client, which were neither addressed nor informed to him as he was not part of any tender committee associated in any manner in the entire process. 3. Learned Counsel stated, Mr. Vishal Saxena, senior most Executive Engineer of the department, after his physical visit, verified those certificates and reported the certificates to be true. He further submitted that even the communication as made was by the higher officials to the PSU - IRCON Ltd. and no such communication was made by the petitioner. He further pointed out that once the department after being satisfied with the report of senior most Executive Engineer Vishal Saxena, then, there was no reason to assume by any stretch of imagination that petitioner played any role in the entire case. 4. Learned Counsel submitted that, after investigation, ACB has filed charge-sheet running into almost 16,000 pages. After completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet and [2026:RJ-JP:22766] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4008/2026] noticing that petitioner is behind bars from 17.02.2026, he deserves to be enlarged on bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, learned GA-cum-AAG along with Mr. Vijay Yadav, learned AGA strongly opposed the bail application. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the ACB that petitioner was though not a part of the Bid Evaluation Committee, but performed all the task as per instructions of Bid Evaluation Committee. Despite knowing all the serious complaints as received by department about the fake certificates, the petitioner did not record any kind of dissent or raise objection in the entire tender process. 6. He further submitted that though the charge-sheet has been filed, but the give facts and circumstances does not warrant the enlargement of the petitioner on bail in this serious scam as unearthed in the State of Rajasthan. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Admittedly, petitioner was Superintending Engineer (Civil) in the department though not a member of the Bid Evaluation Committee but he was aware of the serious complaints as received in regard to the submission of fake certificate by the two firms. Despite that, he allowed the tenders to be processed for the next stage. This Court further noted that the charge-sheet has been filed running into 16,000 pages which is in respect to only 7 tenders as scrutinized up till now by the respondent-ACB out of 104 tenders. None of the persons as named in the FIR registered by the respondent-ACB has been enlarged on bail by any Court up till now. [2026:RJ-JP:22766] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4008/2026] 9. In view of the above, in the given facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the present petitioner on bail at this stage. 10. Consequently, the instant bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner is dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J 68/RAHUL KUMAR