PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Gajju Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No.38766 of 2024
Decided on : 20-09-2024
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Chitkara, J.
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
29 | 15.07.2024 | Vigilance Bureau Patiala, District Patiala | 308(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 (Section 380, 120-B IPC ) and Section 3 of Prevention to Damage to Property Act, 1984 |
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:
2. That pursuant to the order by Hon'ble Court, it is submitted that the brief facts are as following:-
The FIR No.29 Dated 15.07.2024 U/s 7A PC Act 1988 as amended by PC (Amendment) Act 2018 and 308(2), 61(2) The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was registered at Vigilance Bureau Patiala Range Patiala on Statement of Mahinder Singh Process server (Piyada). He Stated in his statement that, I am appointed as a Process server (Piyada) in the court of Hon'ble Gurveer Singh, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala. During April 2024, a complaint No. 152718 was lodged against me on the Anti-Corruption Action Line by Praveen Kumar, son of Jaipal, resident of Mohalla Kalala, Ward No. 05, Bhadaur, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala. This complaint was received by the Vigilance Bureau, Unit, Barnala for investigation, and I recorded my statement regarding the same at the office of the Vigilance Bureau, Barnala.
After the investigation, the complaint was forwarded by the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab to the Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Barnala, for further action, who marked it to the Hon'ble Gurveer Singh, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala. In relation to this investigation, a notice was issued by the Hon'ble Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, summoning the said Praveen Kumar. In connection with this, yesterday, on 14.07.2024, in the evening, Gajju Ram, son of Joginder Ram, resident of Bhadalwad, District Barnala, called me on my mobile No. 90569-56814 from his mobile No. 98761-42888, stating that Praveen Kumar, who lodged the complaint against you, wants to meet you. He asked me to come to Kala Mehar Stadium the next morning. Accordingly, I went to Kala Mehar Stadium, Barnala this morning. where I met Praveen Kumar and Gajju Ram. Praveen Kumar told me that he had been summoned by the Civil Judge, Barnala, in connection with the complaint today. He said that if he records his statement against me before the judge today, action would be taken against me. He further mentioned that he has direct communication with the Civil Judge, Barnala, and if I wanted to defend myself, I should pay him Rs.2,50,000 today. I pleaded with Praveen Kumar to reduce the amount, but he did not agree and insisted on the full amount of Rs.2,50,000. Therefore, on 15.07.2024, I submitted a written application at the office of the Vigilance Bureau, Barnala, regarding Praveen Kumar's demand for a bribe in exchange for settling the complaint against me. In response, you (Vigilance Bureau) sent an employee with a voice recorder to accompany me to meet Praveen Kumar. During this time, 1 had a conversation from my mobile Number with Gajju Ram on his mobile Number, where Gajju Ram asked me to come to Kachehri Chowk, Barnala. The employee sent by you started the voice recorder and placed it in the left pocket of my pants and sent me to Kachehri Chowk, Barnala. There, I met Gajju Ram, who took me on his motorcycle to near Kala Mehar Stadium, where Praveen Kumar was already present. Praveen Kumar reiterated his demand according to the previous discussion and mentioned that he had explained everything to Gajju Ram. Gajju Ram then said to bring Rs.2,50,000 as agreed earlier, to which Praveen Kumar agreed. After the discussion, I returned and handed over the recorder to the employee sent by you, who took the recorder and switched it off. The demand made by Praveen Kumar and Gajju Ram
Article 21 of Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
(1) Court should be slow in granting anticipatory bail in corruption cases.(2) Cancellation of bail must be done only for cogent and overwhelming reasons – Nevertheless, setting aside an unjustified ....
The presumption of innocence does not alone justify anticipatory bail; public interest in corruption cases may necessitate its denial.
Anticipatory bail is not a matter of right and should be denied in corruption cases where substantial evidence exists, to prevent interference with the investigation.
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.