news details |
|
|
| Court rejects pre-arrest bail plea of KAS officer in corruption case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 9: Additional Sessions Judge Anti-Corruption Jammu Ritesh Kumar Dubey rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of KAS officer, Asif Amin Chandel who is posted as Block Development Officer Changa, Tehsil Gandoh, District Doda in corruption case.
According to the ACB that a complaint was lodged by Sanjay Kumar elected member of his ward in Panchayat Halqa Chanti (Balla), that he had executed works for the public under MGNREGA using his own material, and labour payment of the said works was made through Bank Account of card holders. When he approached BDO Changa Asif Amin Chandel for release of payment of the completed works and payment of passenger shed under 14 FC, he told him to first talk to the concerned GRS and JE, only then he will release the payment of said works. When he approached the concerned GRS of RDD, he told him to give Rs 12000 per work as bribe amount without which they would not release the remaining payments as that was their commission. Few days back GRS took Rs 10,000 as commission from him, but still refused to perform the works, and asked for pending commission. Similarly, JE Arshad Amin demanded Rs 17,000 as bribe for himself for preparing the bill for the work done for passenger shed under 14 FC. BDO concerned and the officials named above still refused to release his genuine payment. Complaint was entrusted to Inspector Mohammad Ashraf, for conducting a secret verification who submitted the report which was found to be in consonance with the allegation leveled in the complaint. A trap was laid and the accused Arshan Amim JE RDD was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 17,000. He was arrested on the spot. Investigation conducted so far prima facie establishes the involvement of accused Arshad Amim JE (REW) and other co-accused of RDD Block Changa including the applicant.
Additional Sessions Judge Anti-Corruption Jammu Ritesh Kumar Dubey while rejecting the bail application, observed that there is no doubt that the prosecution must establish the accusations against the accused. In the present case, the weight of public interest is higher than the individual interest of applicant seeking bail in anticipation of arrest. Last but not the least is the fact that the present application is an application for anticipatory bail, and not for a regular bail. And the IO has not got much opportunity till date in view of the medical condition of applicant, to put him to sustained questioning to unearth the scandalous allegations against him and the others. —JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
