Allowed

Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Dec 2023CRM-M/52005/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail to a police officer facing a corruption charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court made an earlier interim order absolute, relying on the acquittal of the main accused and the clarity issues in incriminating audio recordings.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner allowed. Interim order dated 12.10.2023 is made absolute. All pending applications disposed of.

Harjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-52005-2023

¶2

202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-52005-2023

¶4

Date of Decision: 14.12.2023

Harjinder Singh

...Pe oner

Versus

State of Punjab …Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Ms. G.K. Mann, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anmol Jeewan Singh Gill, Advocate for the pe oner.

¶11

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, A.A.G., Punjab assisted by Inspector Lakhwinder Singh.

¶12

****

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶14

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta on	Sec ons
24	15.09.2023	Vigilance Bureau	7 of Preven on of Corrup on
		Range, Jalandhar	Act, 1988

¶15

The pe oner, who is an Inspector in Punjab Police, apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above has come up before this Court under Sec on 438 CrPC seeking an cipatory bail.

¶16

Vide order dated 12.10.2023, this Court had granted interim protec on to the pe oner. On 19.10.2023, the interim order was extended subject to pe oner’s declaring the assets as well as of his spouse on a format prescribed by this Court. Counsel for the pe oner submits that they have voluntarily complied with the said order.

¶17

Facts of the case are being taken from reply dated 18.10.2023 filed by concerned DySP. The present FIR has its roots in another FIR No.63 dated 19.05.2022 registered under Sec ons 323, 341, 354, 354-D IPC, Police Sta on Mukerian at the instance of complainant xxx (name withheld) against one Neeraj Kumar. The complainant alleges that the pe oner prevailed upon the par es for compromise and demanded a share in the part of compensa on which had been paid by Neeraj Kumar to the complainant. The husband of the complainant recorded such conversa on and then, he sent the same to their counsel through telegram message who further handed over the CD to Vigilance Bureau. Based on such audio, the present FIR has been registered against the pe oner.

¶18

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.16 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶19

¶20

CRM-M-52005-2023

¶21

Counsel for the pe oner submits that the complainant of case FIR No.63 dated 19.05.2022 is now living with Neeraj Kumar against whom she has ini ally filed the complaint and not with her husband. She further submits that the audio recording is not at all clear and it cannot be inferred that pe oner is demanding any bribe. The next argument is that the pe oner has clean record and has a reputa on of honesty and uprightness. She further submits that even if the audio is inferred, s ll there is no demand in the said audio.

¶22

Allega on against the pe oner is that aBer the registra on of FIR against Neeraj Kumar, the pe oner wanted the maCer to be compromised. The said Neeraj Kumar was tried for the offences under Sec ons 323, 341, 354, 354-D IPC before the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Mukerian, Hoshiarpur and trial Court vide judgment dated 14.11.2023 passed in case CNR No. PBHOC10009652022, acquiCed him of all the charges. The trial Court aBer appraising the maCer on record and relevant law, kept following points for determina on:-

¶23

“ 1. Whether on 19.5.2020 at about 9:00 PM, in the area of near Bhangala Octroi Post, Mukerian, accused used criminal force to complainant intending to outrage her modesty, if so, its effect?

¶24

2. Whether on the same date, %me and place, accused voluntarily caused simple hurts to complainant, if so, its effect?

¶25

3. Whether on the same date, %me and place, accused wrongfully restrained the complainant from proceeding any direc%on in which she has right to proceed, if so, its effect?

¶26

4. Whether on the same date, %me and place, accused followed and contacted the complainant to foster personal interac%on repeatedly despite her clean inten%on of disinterest, if so, its effect?”

¶27

Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has given his reasonings in para no.15 and it would be appropriate to refer the same which is as under:-

¶28

“ 15. A,er hearing arguments, it is observed that in the present case, criminal law was set into the mo%on on the statement recorded by complainant of the present case. However, complainant while deposing as PW-1 has not supported the prosecu%on version and has been declared as hos%le witnesses at the request of Ld. A.P.P. for the State. She also stated that she got recorded her statement under Sec%ons 164 of Cr.P.C. because this

¶29

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.16 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶30

¶31

CRM-M-52005-2023

¶32

court under pressure of her previous husband. The Ld. A.P.P. for the State has conducted searching cross-examina%on of his own witness but has failed to bring on record anything beneficial to the prosecu%on. In this manner, the material witness of prosecu%on has not supported the case of prosecu%on. Furthermore, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 is not of much importance being formal witnesses.”

¶33

An analysis of the reasons granted for which Neeraj Kumar was acquiCed, which is solely on the basis of statement of prosecutrix, who turned hos le, which was recorded in Court on oath without any influence, coupled with the facts of this case, without appropriate Forensic Science Report, it could not be ascertained that the pe oner in the said audio recording is demanding bribe or share from the complainant in the compensa on. In addi on to the fact that there is no s gma on pe oner’s record, as such it is neither a case for custodial interroga on nor pre-trial incarcera on.

¶34

Given above, the pe on is allowed. Interim order dated 12.10.2023 is made absolute. All pending applica ons, if any also stand disposed of.

¶35

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 14.12.2023 Jyo Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶36

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.16 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶37

Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sohan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Rajnesh Vs State of Haryana

Kapila Sherawat Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Gurpreet Singh @ Happy Vs State of Punjab

Imran Ahmed Wani Vs State of Punjab