Dinesh @ Bobby v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-18454 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 18, 2018 Dinesh @ Bobby

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Birinder Singh Khehar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.92 dated 05.04.2018 under Sections 384, 406, 420, 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 8,10, 12 and 49/88 of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station City Narwana, District Jind.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that in the present case, FIR has been registered on the basis of enquiry conducted on the allegations in the source

CRM No.M-18454 of 2018 -2report by DSP, Detective Department (H), Karnal. As per the enquiry report received, user of mobile No.99913-44185 was reportedly indulged in corrupt practices. He is in practice of deceiving general public by alluring them for government job, thereby, interfering in government business. In order to keep watch on his activities, probity and transparency of public administration, his number was requested to put on interception. Out of 23 folders, 18 calls were relating to corruption conversation and approximate transcription of the same was prepared. The allegations are that Suresh Kumar was talking to the petitioner for taking money and getting selected some persons in the service.

Learned State counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that statements of witnesses have been recorded, who have paid money for getting selected and in the reply filed by the State, it is stated that statement of one Suresh Kumar s/o Chandi Ram, has been recorded under Section164 Cr.P.C., in which, he stated that he has given `10 lakhs to co-accused and promised to pay remaining amount of `11 lakhs in lieu of getting appointed his son as Taxation Inspector and co-accused Suresh Kumar has promised him to appoint his son as Taxation Inspector through petitioner Dinesh Kumar @ Bobby.

In the reply, there is reference of statement of Pawan Kumar, who also stated that he has been appointed on the post of Patwari in lieu of `5 lakhs, which was paid to petitioner and there is also statement of one Suresh, which is mentioned in the short reply.

CRM No.M-18454 of 2018 -3ground is made out for grant of benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

However, nothing stated above, shall constitute my opinion on merits of the case.

July 18, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No