The court reiterated that bail should be the norm, not the exception, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and necessity of substantial evidence to deny bail.

JUDGEMENT

1. The petitioner herein through the medium of the instant application seeks bail in FIR No. RC0042023A0009, dated 13.09.2022, registered with CBI, ACB Jammu under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act of 1988).

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner herein while serving as a Revenue Inspector in the Cantonment Board, Jammu came to be arrested by the respondent herein on 14.09.2023 on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sh. Vinod Sharma S/o Late Ratan Lal Sharma R/o Q. No. 12, Cantonment Board, Jammu Cantt. Satwari, Jammu who had alleged in the complaint that the petitioner herein had demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) for not taking any action against him on the eviction notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Jammu and also for making allotment entry in the name of the mother of the complainant.

3. According to the learned counsel, prior to the filing of the instant bail application, the petitioner filed a bail application before the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases), Jammu on 15.09.2023, which application, however, came to be dismissed on 21.09.2023 on the ground that the investigation is at the early stage and that the statement of the material witnesses of pre-trap and post-trap proceedings have not been recorded and that, as such, there is every possibility of the petitioner herein hampering the investigation.

4. According to the learned counsel, the investigation in the case being an offence committed by the petitioner under section 7 of the Act of 1988 is complete as soon as the trap proceedings are concluded and, as such, the detention of the petitioner after completion of trap proceedings amounts to pre-trial conviction which is not being countenanced by law.

According to the learned counsel, the petitioner undertakes to abide by any of the terms and conditions those may be imposed by this court in case, the petitioner is admitted to bail. More so, inview of the fact that only one day's remand was sought by the prosecution from the competent Court for the custody of the petitioner herein.

5. Objections to the application have been filed by the respondent herein wherein it is being stated that the petitioner herein came to be caught red handed while demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant in presence of independent witnesses on 14.09.2023 after a verification of the said complaint was carried out and Case No. RC0042023A0009 was registered on 13.09.2023 u/s 7 of the Act of 1988 against the petitioner and consequently a trap was laid and the petitioner was caught red handed on 14.09.2023 while demanding and accepting bribe from the complainant and that considering the gravity of the offence, the earlier bail application filed by the petitioner before the Special Judge Anti Corruption (CBI Cases) Jammu came to be rejected vide order dated 21.09.2023 and that the accused-petitioner being a public servant has committed a heinous offence and that the accused-petitioner has also been found to be involved in demanding and accepting bribe for processing other cases as well pending in his office and that an amount of Rs. 6.50 lacs was recovered from his residence and that the investigation of the case is under way to trace further proceeds of crime acquired by the petitioner and that the petitioner is highly influential and investigation is at a crucial stage and that there is every possibility that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses if granted bail b