Vinay Verma v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-62319-2024 Date of decision: May 8th, 2025 Vinay Verma .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.51 dated 06.11.2024 under Sections 7-A of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, Patiala.

2.

On 30.01.2025, petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "On the last date of hearing, following submissions were made by counsel for the petitioner: "Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is a gold smith/private person; he had no occasion to communicate or get in touch with the complainant Amandeep Singh (an accused in a case registered under the NDPS Act), for offering to settle the matter in lieu of bribe on behalf of STF."

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.08 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-62319-2024 -2In addition to the submissions made on the last date of hearing before this court, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. He further submits that although it has been alleged that there was some audio recordings of the conversation between the petitioner and complainant with respect to the alleged demand of bribe, however, the petitioner never made any such demands; the petitioner is willing to give his voice samples to the investigating agency in that regard."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 30.01.2025, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.

5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 30.01.2025, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

May 8th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.08 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh