Hc Jaswinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-37950 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 10, 2018 HC Jaswinder Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab s...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.J.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab 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.11 dated 03.08.2018 under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Ludhiana. 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 allegation against the petitioner is that he along with SPO Sanjay Kumar and one another co-accused (lady), picked up Bharti wife of complainant Hardeep Singh and Rekha Goyal, VINEET GULATI 2018.09.11 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-37950 of 2018 -2sister-in-law of complainant and then asked for bribe to plant lesser quantity instead of commercial quantity of intoxicant powder. As per the FIR, the matter was settled for `20,000/-. SPO Sanjay Kumar was apprehended red handed in a trap while accepting `20,000/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that present petitioner has not received any bribe money nor demanded the same and he has been falsely implicated. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that there is recording of mobile conversation between the complainant and present petitioner regarding the whole occurrence and demand of money and copy of the transcript of the conversation has also been placed on record.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the fact that petitioner is named in the FIR and serious allegations have been levelled against him, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find a fit case where petitioner is entitled for benefit of anticipatory bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

September 10, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2018.09.11 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh