Judgment

Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.01 dated 16.02.2023 registered under Sections 7 , 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by P.C. (Amended) Act, 2018) and under Section 120-B IPC at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda, District Bathinda.

2. The FIR in question has been registered on the statement of Pritpal Kumar, who has alleged that his wife is Sarpanch of the village Ghudda since 2019. His wife has got different development works done in the village. In these development works, the Panchayat has purchased goods from different firms, but payment has not been released for the material used in the development works. The complainant and his wife have met the BDPO Sangat and employees of concerned departments on many occasions, but payments have not been released to the concerned firms. Due to aforesaid in-action, new work could not be started for want of payments to the firms as no firm is ready to give any material to the Panchayat on credit basis. The complainant and his wife met the petitioner for getting the payments made to the firms, so that new development work could be started. The petitioner was made aware about the pending payments and pending development works in the village. The Panchayat has money in its account for making these payments, but the BDPO Sangat is not issuing the cheques for these payments intentionally as the wife of the petitioner has not given any bribe to the aforesaid officer. The complainant further submitted that the officials of the department are harassing the petitioner and his wife. Other works could not be started as the officials have not assigned any duty for making the assessment. The petitioner on hearing the grievance of the complainant, asked him to come again and they would sit and discuss the issue alone. The complainant is alleged to have met the petitioner alone in a room in the circuit house, Bathinda in October 2022, where the petitioner and Rashim Garg were present in the room, whom the complainant knew beforehand and who is private P.A of the petitioner, who used to supervise the whole work of the petitioner. The complainant requested them in respect of pending payments of development works in the village. The petitioner asked the complainant as to how much amount is due and how much amount is lying in the Panchayat fund. The complainant told the petitioner and Rashim Garg that about Rs.25 lacs are lying in the Panchayat fund and bills of around Rs.12-13 lacs are pending to be paid to the firms. The petitioner assured the complainant that he will get the payment of these bills done from the BDPO Sangat on the condition that the complainant will have to give them an amount of Rs.5 lacs as bribe in lieu of the work. The complainant did not want to say yes, but due to compelling circumstances, he had to say yes for giving bribe to the aforesaid persons in order to get the payments released in favour of the firms as the firms were raising demand for their payments time and again. The petitioner asked his private P.A Rashim Garg to call BDPO Sangat to the circuit house. Before the BDPO came there, the petitioner asked the complainant to do the transaction with his P.A Rashim Garg only. He told the complainant that he is his private P.A so the complainant should pay the money to him and he will transfer the same in favour of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, BDPO reached there and the petitioner asked the BDPO to make the payments of p