Dismissed

Raj Pal v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Mar 2009CRM-M/1947/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging pre-arrest bail in corruption prosecution alleging extortion. Court refused bail noting consistent complaints of corruption make extraordinary relief inappropriate despite probable defence on one count. Rejects suggestion to fast-track regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; liberty to seek regular bail on same day as per agreement is noted.

Raj Pal Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Cr.Misc. NO.M 1947 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Cr.Misc. NO.M 1947 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION 6.3.2009

Raj Pal

......PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Haryana

......RESPONDENTS

PRESENT: Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate Mr. PM Anand, Addl.A.G.Hry

¶11

M.M.S.BEDI,J.

¶12

The petitioner, as per the contents of the FIR has been stamped a thoroughly corrupt official indulging in demanding and receiving a sum of Rs.200/- per consumer while providing electricity connections under a scheme of the Government to provide electricity connections to the persons below poverty line. On the basis of the allegations of the consumers, the FIR stands registered and he has also been suspended.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no recovery of any tainted amount has been made from the petitioner and that it is not within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the petitioner to provide any electric connection to any of the consumers under the above said scheme. He has further contended that one of the complainants,namely, Satpal is inimical towards the petitioner as the petitioner has got permanent disconnection of his electric connection on account of his having failed to pay the bill.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, no doubt, has got a probable defence against complainant Satpal but there

¶15

Cr.Misc. NO.M 1947 of 2009

¶16

¶17

have been consistent complaints against the petitioner for demanding and receiving money from the consumers. The plea of the petitioner that it is not his duty to provide electric connection, may be a good defence and ground for seeking the concession of regular bail but granting pre-arrest bail to a person against whom there are a number of complaints of corruption, cannot be granted the extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

¶18

The petition is dismissed.

¶19

This order will not, in any manner, affect the rights of the petitioner to seek regular bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a direction be issued that the application for regular bail of the petitioner may be decided on the same day. The petitioner will be at liberty to make such a request to the court concerned at the time of applying regular bail.

¶20

March 6 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE

Raj Pal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Pal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narinder Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Kulwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Babuddin Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Laxmi Narain Vs State of Haryana

Nidhi Jain and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Parveen Bawa Vs State of Haryana