IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
Tarun Garg – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-4117-2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 20-02-2023
Anticipatory Bail - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) - The court allowed the application for anticipatory bail in a case where the petitioner, an Executive Engineer, was alleged to have demanded a bribe. The court considered the audio conversation as evidence but found it insufficient to justify custodial interrogation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case where he was alleged to have demanded a bribe from a contractor for releasing payment. The complainant recorded the alleged conversation on his cell phone, and a raid was conducted by the Vigilance Bureau.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not caught red-handed, and there was no evidence of him receiving the alleged gratification. The court considered the audio conversation but found it insufficient to justify custodial interrogation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in a case where he was alleged to have demanded a bribe.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of evidence of the petitioner receiving the alleged gratification and the insufficiency of the audio conversation to justify custodial interrogation as the basis for granting anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail, subject to conditions, and ordered him to join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer.
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral) -
CRM-8230-2023
In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on record as Annexures P-8 to P-12 subject to all just exceptions.
CRM-M-4117-2023 (Main Case)
1. The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.01, dated 10.1.2023 at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar, under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act.
2. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Vikram Singh, wherein it is alleged that he has a contractor license and had undertaken work of installation of water pipe line from Bus Stand Village Matana to main chowk Hanuman Mandir and had spent an amount of Rs.1 lakh on the said work. The complainant alleged that when he met Tarun Garg (petitioner), XEN, Public Health Department, Fatehabad at his residence for release of payment in respect of the said bill, he demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/- and that he (complainant) paid an amount of Rs.9,000/- to the petitioner and the remaining amount of Rs.11,000/- was to be paid on 10.1.2023. The complainant claimed that he had recorded the said conversation on his cell phone. It is further alleged that on 5.1.2023, the complainant had met Deepak Revari (co-accused), SDO, Public Health Department in respect of the said bill and he also demanded an amount of Rs.8,000/- for clearance of the bill and another amount of Rs.28,000/- for clearing the previous bills and he (complainant) recorded the said conversation as well on his mobile phone. Since the matter was reported to the Vigilance Bureau, a raid was conducted. The complainant had been handed over currency notes worth Rs.27,000/-(54 X 500). The co-accused Deepak Revari was caught red handed while accepting an amount of Rs.16,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner was never caught red-handed and that the only allegation against him is that he had demanded bribe from the complainant and the said conversation had allegedly been recorded in the mobile phone of the complainant. Learned counsel submits that although in the FIR it is alleged that the petitioner had already received an amount of Rs.9,000/- as gratification but there is no evidence in respect of the same. It has further been submitted that the alleged audio conversation does not clearly show that the petitioner had raised any demand for the purpose of clearing the bills and that, in any case, the authenticity of said audio conversation is yet to be established.
4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the allegations as levelled in the FIR stand fully substantiated from the fact that co-accused Deepak Revari was caught red-handed. It has further been submitted that the audio conversation also goes a long way to show that the petitioner was in touch with the complainant and had asked him to pay an amount of Rs.11,000/-. It has further been submitted that it is the petitioner in the capacity of XEN, who was competent to release the payment in respect of the works executed by any contractor and, as such, his complicity is clearly evident.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court.
6. It is not in dispute that it is the co-accused only, who was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs.16,000/-. It is also noticed that the petitioner is named in the FIR and is alleged to have received an amount of Rs.9,000/-from the complainant on 4.1.2023, when the complainant had met him initially. However, at this stage, there is no evidence in respect of said passing of an amount of Rs.9,000/-. The prosecution relies heavily on the audio conversation. The translated gist of the transcript annexed as Annexure R-3 with the reply filed by State is reproduced hereinunder:
'Transcript of the conversation of bride a
Insufficiency of evidence to justify custodial interrogation in a case of alleged bribery.
The fabrication of documents to conceal guilt can negatively impact a petitioner's credibility and influence the court's decision on granting anticipatory bail.
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 presumption of innocence does not alone justify anticipatory bail; public interest in corruption cases may necessitate its denial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.