news details |
|
|
| HC grants bail to Asst Director Airport in trap case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 5: Justice Sanjay Dhar of J&K High Court Jammu Wing has granted bail to Umesh Kumar Verma who posted as Assistant Director Civil Aviation at Jammu Airport, who was arrested by CBI in a trap case.
Umesh Kumar Verma was arrested on 10th of September 2020 by CBI while allegedly accepting bribe of Rs 5000. A K Sawhney and Aseem Sawhney Advocates filed the bail application for Umesh Kumar Verma and alleged that the case is false and manipulated by vested interests.
Aseem Sawhney urged before the Court that the CBI has framed the petitioner in a false case at the behest of the contractor who had moved this complaint to CBI. He submitted that continuous arrest is not warranted any more as the CBI does not require the custody any longer and nothing is required to be recovered from petitioner. Advocate Aseem Sawhney cited several Supreme Court judgment holding "bail not jail" and submitted that the entry to airport was not under the petitioner's control as being alleged in the FIR.
Monika Kohli Advocate appeared for the CBI and opposed the bail citing the same as a serious offence and a white collared crime.
Justice Sanjay Dhar held - "It is further contended that investigation of the case is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. In the instant case, the petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act. The said offence is neither punishable by death sentence nor imprisonment for life. Therefore, the rigor of Section 437(1) (i) Cr.PC is not applicable to this case. In the case of aforesaid nature, grant of bail is within discretion of the Court. However, the said discretion is to be exercised on the basis of well recognized principles of law and the precedents. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner is alleged to have been caught red handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs 5000 from the complainant. Recovery of the bribe amount has already been effected and it is not the case of the prosecution that any further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, who is stated to be in custody since 10.09.2020. By now investigation of the case must have been taken to its logical conclusion. Therefore, further custody of the petitioner is not going to serve any purpose. The petitioner cannot be refused bail merely on the ground that he is involved in an economic offence. Doing so will amount to imposition of pre-trial punishment upon him, which is impermissible in law. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail." —JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
