Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA
Pawan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Chitkara, J.
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
915 | 22.11.2022 | City Panipat, District Panipat | 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B IPC and Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 |
1. The petitioner, who is posted as a Tax Branch Officer in the office of Municipal Corporation, Panipat, apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above on the allegations of causing financial loss to the department by under charging development fee in collusion with brokers and Property owners and issuing No Due Certificates, had come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail by filing the present petition.
2. Vide order dated 09.02.2023, the petitioner was granted interim bail, which is continuing till date.
3. Prosecution's case is taken from the reply dated 14.02.2024, which reads as follows:-
"That on 22/11 / 2022 Deputy Inspector Raj Singh, Chief Minister Flying Squad, Haryana Division, Karnal has filed a complaint No. 805/CMFS/KNL d1-22-11-2022 to the Station House Officer, Police Station City, Panipat, District Panipat. The contents of complaint are reproduced below for the ready reference of the Hon'ble Court as under:-
"That information was received through s
The court ruled that quash petitions cannot resolve factual disputes, and allegations of bribery against a public servant must be assessed within the framework of a complete trial.
Multiple inquiries into the same allegations infringe upon the right to a fair trial under Article 21, justifying the grant of anticipatory bail.
The conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was overturned due to prosecutorial failures in evidence handling and record falsification, highlighting the need for integrity in judicial proce....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential to establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Allegations of bribery must have credible evidence; failure of a trap can lead to the dismissal of an FIR as an abuse of legal process.
The involvement of a public servant in misappropriating funds under a government scheme, facilitated by fraudulent actions, constitutes a serious breach of trust deserving denial of bail.
Government officials must act in accordance with legal mandates, and failure to do so, especially in corruption cases, justifies denial of bail and necessitates custodial interrogation.
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
