Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
ASI Sukhdev Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 58005 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 16-12-2022
Prevention of Corruption Act - Regular Bail - The court granted bail to the petitioner, a police official, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, considering that investigation was complete, no further recovery was to be made, and there was no chance of the petitioner absconding.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police official, sought regular bail in a case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, where he was alleged to have demanded illegal gratification.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioner, noting that investigation was complete, no further recovery was to be made, and there was no chance of the petitioner absconding.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner, being a police official, should be granted bail in a case involving allegations of demanding illegal gratification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the completion of investigation, the absence of further recovery to be made, and the likelihood of the trial taking time in granting bail to the petitioner.
Final Decision: Bail was granted to the petitioner on furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan, J. - This is a petition seeking regular bail in case of FIR No.16 dated 13.10.2022, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act, 2018), registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda, District Bathinda.
2. The brief facts are that the FIR was registered at the instance of Des Raj. It was alleged that petitioner posted as ASI demanded illegal gratification for presenting the challan in FIR No. 328 dated 12.12.2020, under Sections 325, 323, 341, 452, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station City Malout. He had accepted part payment of illegal gratification. To support his case, complainant produced an audio recording.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is a case of false implication to pressurize the petitioner to act as per the whims and fancies of complainant in the FIR. The contention is that the petitioner is in custody since 13.10.2022. Investigation is complete. Challan stands presented. The petitioner has given his voice sample.
4. Learned State counsel on instructions opposes the prayer but is not disputing the fact that investigation is complete, voice sample has been taken and petitioner is not involved in any other case.
5. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering that petitioner being police official prima-facie there is no chance of his absconding though investigation is complete conclusion of trial is likely to take time, no further recovery is to be made, bail is granted to the petitioner on furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
The petition is allowed.
6. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
7. Since the main case has been decided, the pending application, if any is rendered infructuous.
The completion of investigation, absence of further recovery, and the likelihood of trial taking time are relevant factors in considering bail for an accused.
The court considered the evidence, circumstances, and the petitioner's detention period to determine the justification for his further detention and granted bail accordingly.
The court considered the lack of specific attribution and recovery in the bribery allegations as grounds for granting bail to the petitioner.
Grant of bail based on the absence of recovery, the likelihood of a lengthy trial, and the lack of criminal antecedents, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.
The court established that prolonged detention without ongoing investigation and the potential delay in trial can be grounds for granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Grant of bail based on completion of investigation and delay in trial due to awaited prosecution sanction for co-accused.
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
