news details |
|
|
| CBI Court rejects bail of postal assistant in trap case | | |  Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 3: The Special Anti-Corruption Court in Jammu has rejected the bail application of a Postal Assistant accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 15,000 for conducting the physical inspection of a clinic required for the release of a Rs 5 lakh subsidy. Special Judge Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases), Jammu, Pawan Kumar Sharma dismissed the bail plea of Vijay Singh Sohi, presently posted as Postal Assistant at Jammu Cantonment Sub Post Office, observing that corruption in public life cannot be treated as an ordinary offence.
The court said corruption was “eating the society,” affecting the social fabric and efficiency of public service, besides demoralising honest officers.
According to the CBI, the case was registered on July 10, 2026, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita following a written complaint lodged by Dr Nitin Sharma.
The complainant alleged that Sohi demanded Rs 15,000 for conducting the physical inspection of his clinic in connection with the release of a Rs 5 lakh subsidy under a Khadi and Village Industries Commission scheme. The complainant had reportedly secured an Rs 18 lakh loan from the State Bank of India.
The prosecution said a trap was laid on July 10, during which Sohi allegedly arrived at the clinic along with co-accused Mukesh Kumar. The bribe amount was allegedly demanded and accepted inside a blue Maruti Baleno bearing registration number JK02CR-6422.
On noticing the CBI trap team, Sohi allegedly fled from the spot in the vehicle, while Mukesh Kumar was apprehended in the presence of independent witnesses. The trap money was also recovered.
Sohi earlier filed an anticipatory bail application but later withdrew it. He subsequently surrendered before the court on July 25 and was lodged in judicial custody at District Jail Amphalla.
The CBI told the court that the vehicle allegedly used to flee the trap was later recovered on the disclosure of the accused. The investigating agency further claimed that traces of phenolphthalein powder were detected inside the vehicle.
Senior Public Prosecutor Sushil Negi, appearing for the CBI, also relied upon a recorded conversation between the accused and the complainant, which allegedly indicated the demand for illegal gratification.
Seeking bail, Advocates Surekha Bhat and Rajan Radha argued that no bribe money was recovered from Sohi and that the alleged recovery had been made from the co-accused. They contended that neither the demand nor the conscious acceptance of the bribe had been established.
The defence further argued that the vehicle in question did not belong to the applicant and expressed apprehension that the evidence concerning the car might have been tampered with after its recovery.
It was also submitted that the offence carried a maximum punishment of seven years and that co-accused Mukesh Kumar had already been granted bail. On the grounds of parity and equity, the applicant sought similar relief.
Rejecting the arguments, the court observed that the alleged flight of the applicant from the trap spot itself raised a strong suspicion about his involvement. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
