This judgment dismisses a petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that no ground is made out for anticipatory bail due to the serious nature of the allegations and the requirement for custodial interrogation.
The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-18454 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 18, 2018
Dinesh @ Bobby
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Birinder Singh Khehar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.92 dated 05.04.2018 under Sections 384, 406, 420, 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 8,10, 12 and 49/88 of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station City Narwana, District Jind.
Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that in the present case, FIR has been Vineet Gulati 2018.07.23 14:37 I attest to the accuracy andregistered on the basis of enquiry conducted on the allegations in the source authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-18454 of 2018
-2-
report by DSP, Detective Department (H), Karnal. As per the enquiry report received, user of mobile No.99913-44185 was reportedly indulged in corrupt practices. He is in practice of deceiving general public by alluring them for government job, thereby, interfering in government business. In order to keep watch on his activities, probity and transparency of public administration, his number was requested to put on interception. Out of 23 folders, 18 calls were relating to corruption conversation and approximate transcription of the same was prepared. The allegations are that Suresh Kumar was talking to the petitioner for taking money and getting selected some persons in the service.
Learned State counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that statements of witnesses have been recorded, who have paid money for getting selected and in the reply filed by the State, it is stated that statement of one Suresh Kumar s/o Chandi Ram, has been recorded under Section164 Cr.P.C., in which, he stated that he has given 10 lakhs to co-accused and promised to pay remaining amount of 11 lakhs in lieu of getting appointed his son as Taxation Inspector and co-accused Suresh Kumar has promised him to appoint his son as Taxation Inspector through petitioner Dinesh Kumar @ Bobby. In the reply, there is reference of statement of Pawan Kumar, who also stated that he has been appointed on the post of Patwari in lieu of `5 lakhs, which was paid to petitioner and there is also statement of one Suresh, which is mentioned in the short reply.
Keeping in view the serious allegations against the petitioner, nature and gravity of the offence and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the Vineet Gulati 2018.07.23 14:37 I attest to the accuracy andcase, I find that petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and no authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-18454 of 2018
-3-
ground is made out for grant of benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is
dismissed.
However, nothing stated above, shall constitute my opinion on
merits of the case.
July 18, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
Vineet Gulati 2018.07.23 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is required to be granted to the petitioner in view of the serious allegations of corruption and the need for custodial interrogation.
Whether the allegations of deceiving the public for government jobs and interfering in government business constitute a ground for denying anticipatory bail.
Dinesh @ Bobby
State of Haryana
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
