[2026:RJ-JP:22765] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4668/2026 Sushil Sharma S/o Shri Banshidhar Sharma, R/o E-1/A, Kardhani, JDA Scheme, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. (Presently Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Vipin Sharma and Mr. Amit Kumar Dehran 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. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner Sushil Sharma S/o Shri Banshidhar Sharma, 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 [2026:RJ-JP:22765] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-4668/2026] bail application was moved before the learned Trial Court which came to be rejected by impugned order dated 07.03.2026. 2. Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vipin Sharma, Adv. appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working on the post of Chief Accounts Officer and was designated as Financial Advisor in the tender process under question in the impugned FIR lodged by ACB. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner was only involved in the process in respect of the tender bearing No.42 and 51. He further submitted that being the Chief Accounts Officer and being a part of the Committee as Financial Advisor, he actually had no role in bid evaluation process of which he was the member as he had nothing to do with the technical evaluation of the bid. It is 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 others 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 at all directly associated in any decision making process. It was further argued that once the allegations in regard to fake experience certificates of two firms namely M/s. Ganpati Tubewell Company and M/s. Shyam Tubewell Company were made to the concerned ACS, then it was the duty of the higher officials to take proper and actual action in accordance with law. 3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that on receipt of the complaints, one Mr. Vishal Saxena, Seniormost Executive Engineer of PHED was sent to Kerala to verify who, after his [2026:RJ-JP:22765] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-4668/2026] physical visit, verified those certificates and reported the certificates to be true. He further submitted that it is apparent that the department acted on the basis of the said report with which the petitioner has no direct or indirect connection. He further submitted that even the communication in respect of verification of alleged fake certificates as made was by the higher officials to the officials of 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 Executive Engineer Vishal Saxena, informed the complainant, he then withdrew his legal notice by his letter cum notice dated 17.04.2023. Then, there was no reason to assume any kind of alleged role of petitioner in the entire case. He was just a part of the Committee which processed the tenders for next stage, but he, independently and solely, was not responsible in any final decision making process. Being one of the Member, he had to go by the decisions of the higher officials. 4. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the respondent- ACB, after conducting the investigation, submitted a bulky charge- sheet running into almost 16,000 pages and the complete charge- sheet failed to disclose that petitioner was anyway involved in the alleged scam and therefore, after completion of the investigation and filing of the chargesheet and 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 counsels appearing for the [2026:RJ-JP:22765] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-4668/2026] ACB that petitioner was part of the Bid Evaluation Committee (hereinafter to be refereed as ‘BEC') which was the first Committee which started the process of evaluation of the bids as submitted for the respective tender bearing Nos. 42 and 51. He further submitted that petitioner has not denied that complaints were not received from the complainant in regard to the fake certificate as submitted by above mentioned two firms. Despite knowing the serious complaints about the fake certificates, the petitioner did not record any kind of dissent or raise objection in the entire tender process. 6. It was vehemently argued by Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, that any person who was part of the Committee was equally responsible for the entire decision making process and no person can be allowed to shift burden on others by presenting himself to be innocent and unconnected person in the entire scam. He further submitted that up till now, only 7 tenders have been scrutinized out of approximately 104 tenders. He further submitted that though the charge-sheet has been filed, but the given facts and circumstances does not warrant the enlargement of the petitioner on bail in this serious scam as unearthed by ACB in the State of Rajasthan. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Admittedly, petitioner was Chief Accounts Officer and member of the BEC and being the member, he was the Financial Advisor in the said Committee. It is not in dispute that the Committee of which petitioner was a part, in the capacity of Financial Advisor, was aware of the serious complaints as received in regard to the submission of fake certificates by the above [2026:RJ-JP:22765] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-4668/2026] mentioned two firms. Despite that, the tender of those firms were not canceled which goes to show that by following collusive approach and in collusion with other members, the tenders were allowed to be processed for the further stages. 9. This Court, while examining the bail application of the other co-accused, also noted that Seniormost Executive Engineer - Vishal Saxena, after verification of the complaints as received by the department, submitted a manipulative fake report by reporting that the certificates are not fake, rather genuine, whereas later on, those certificates were found to be fake as PSU - IRCON Ltd. itself in June, 2023 informed the PHED about the certificate being fake on which CBI registered the FIR bearing No.RC2172024A0008 on 03.05.2024. 10. 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 which includes senior officials of the PHED. 11. 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. 12. Consequently, the instant bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner is dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J 69/RAHUL KUMAR