news details |
|
|
| HC grants bail to Tehsildar, DySP Crime Branch in trap cases | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Dec 2: Justice Rahul Bharti of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while hearing two different bail applications of Rohit Sharma then Tehsildar Bahu (now under suspension) and Varinder Singh then DySP Crime Branch (now under suspension) who were caught red-handed by the Anticorruption Bureau while accepting bribe money.
Justice Rahul Bharti after hearing Sr. Adv Sunil Sethi with Adv Parimoksh Seth for the Rohit Sharma and Sr. Adv RS Thakur with Adv Ashwani Thakur whereas Sr. AAG Monika Kohli for the ACB, directed that petitioners are held entitled to be released on bail subject to furnishing of bonds, personal as well as surety, to the amount of Rupees One Lac each to be furnished to the Investigating Officers.
Justice Rahul Bharti while granting bail to Tehsildar, observed that it seems that even the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajouri (Camp Jammu) is conscious of the fact that the custody of the petitioner in reference to FIR under investigation might not enjoy any further extension from the court of law and, as such in order to lend a more serious note to the case, the respondent in its fresh objections have come forward with the plea that the petitioner is also under enquiry for disproportionate assets. It is not understandable as to how in the FIR relating to trap case the fact of enquiry against the petitioner for alleged disproportionate assets has any bearing except as an attempt to put off the indulgence of the Court in considering the grant of bail in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has come to seek the bail after his bail application filed before the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu came to be rejected vide an order dated 21.11.2022 passed on file no. 1611/2022. From reading of the said order, the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu seems to have been weighed down by the fact that by reference to FIR no. 02/2022 which has been registered only for the incident of demand of bribe from the complainant by the petitioner, the Investigation Officer is stretching the investigation to case of alleged disproportionate assets against the petitioner. The Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu deemed the stage of the investigation warranting no bail to the petitioner without attending the case from the perspective as to whether with respect to the commission of offence alleged in the FIR no. 02/2022, there was any purpose for the continuing custody of the petitioner by the arresting authority.
Court further observed that a successful prosecution of a criminal case in a court of law is based upon quality of police investigation with respect to the facts and circumstances of the case attending the commission of offences and not by length of continuing custody of a suspect or an accused during the course of investigation. An investigation authority is bound to show and demonstrate on factual basis as to how if an accused is admitted to bail in a case before finalization of police investigation and consequent presentation of police report under section 173 Cr. P.C, 1973, the investigation work is likely to suffer hurdles/obstacles to the prejudice of taking the investigation to the truth of the matter. Just by sound effects of expressions that the bail granted will jeopardize/undermine investigation may not suffice to deny bail to an accused under custody at the hands of the Police.
Justice Rahul Bharti while granting bail to DYSP, observed that the FIR relates to the trap case for demand and acceptance of bribe which is carried out in the presence of police officials of the anti corruption as well as the public servants solicited as shadow and independent witnesses, the investigation of the case is not supposed to last long for asking continuing custody of the petitioner. In view of this, this Court sees no reason to deny bail to the petitioner in the present case.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
