Back
2009 (2) RCR(Cri) 692-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
M.M.S.BEDI, J
Raj Pal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondents
Cr.Misc. NO.M 1947 of 2009
Decided on: 6.3.2009
Corruption - Electricity Connections - The court dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail based on consistent complaints of demanding and receiving money from consumers, despite the petitioner's defense against one complainant and the argument that providing electric connections was not within his duty.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of demanding and receiving money from consumers for providing electricity connections under a government scheme. The petitioner argued that it was not his duty to provide electric connections and that one of the complainants was inimical towards him due to a previous disconnection of electric connection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the petitioner had a probable defense against one complainant, there were consistent complaints of corruption against him, leading to the dismissal of the petition for pre-arrest bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged corruption in demanding and receiving money from consumers for electricity connections, the defense against one complainant, and the argument regarding the petitioner's duty to provide electric connections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the consistent complaints of corruption against the petitioner, despite his defense against one complainant and the argument regarding his duty to provide electric connections.
Final Decision: The petition for pre-arrest bail was dismissed, with the petitioner being allowed to seek regular bail separately.
M.M.S.Bedi, J
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, no doubt, has got a probable defence against complainant Satpal but there 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. The petition is dismissed.
4. 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.
Petition dismissed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
