Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surender Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 5 July, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083417
CRM-M-25505-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-25505-2024
Date of Decision: 05.07.2024
Surender Kumar ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar Dahiya, Advocate
for the pe oner.
Mr. Sanjeev Panwar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta on Sec ons 10 16.03.2024 An Corrup on 7 of PC Act, 1988 Bureau, Karnal
1. The pe oner incarcerated in the FIR cap oned above has come up before this Court under Sec on 439 CrPC seeking bail.
2. In paragraph 12 of the bail pe on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. Counsel for the pe oner has handed over affidavit declaring assets to the Inves gator- Inspector Hemraj in the Court itself. Pe oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi ons and is also voluntarily agreeable to the condi on that ll the conclusion of the trial before the trial court, the pe oner shall keep only one mobile number, which is men oned in AADHAR card, and within fiBeen days of release from prison undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The pe oner contends that the further pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the pe oner and family.
4. The State opposes bail, however does not dispute the factum of handing over of affidavit.
5. Facts of the case are being taken from status report dated 28.06.2024 filed by concerned DySP which reads as under:-
11 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 03:01:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083417 CRM-M-25505-2024 "2. The true facts of the case are that on 16-03-
2024, Yusuf (complainant) handed over his complaint to Inspector Hemraj (Inves$ga$ng officer) wherein he had stated that he had purchased 20 Kanal 7 Marla Agriculture land, in the year 2022, in the village (Pathargarh) Panipat. Therea.er, complainant went to Tehsil Bapoli, Panipat and got his statement recorded to get the Girdawari of the land done in favour of his sons viz. Savej and Javed and he repeatedly met halka patwari Surender Kumar (pe$$oner-accused), but he did not do his work and kept demanding a bribe of Rs. 1,00,000/- from complainant but when complainant showed his inability to pay off the bribe amount then on 14-3-2024 the ma9er was se9led at Rs. 85,000/- but he (complainant) did not want to pay the bribe amount to the accused person.
Hence, the present FIR No. 10 dated 16-03-2024 (Annexure P-1) was registered against Surender Kumar, Patwari (pe$$oner-accused) u/s 7 PC Act, 1988 in Police Sta$on, An$ Corrup$on Bureau, Karnal
3. That therea.er, the Superintendent of Police An$ Corrup$on Bureau, Karnal appointed Sh. Vinod Rawal, XEN, HSAMB, Panipat as Gaze9ed Officer upon which the Gaze9ed Officer (Independent witness further appointed Sh. Madan Lal, Peon of his office as Shadow Witness. Raiding team was cons$tuted and a.er applying Phenolphthalein powder on currency notes of Rs.85,000/- the said notes were handed over to the complainant Yusuf, who was further instructed to talk with Surender Kumar, Halka Patwari (Pathargarh) for his work and on raising his demand, the complainant was instructed to hand over Rs.85,000/- tainted money to Surender Kumar, Patwari. The Shadow witness was also instructed to see and hear the conversa$on between complainant and accused and was further directed to give the appointed signal to the raiding team. List of Currency notes, memo of handing over the notes and the search memo etc. were prepared.
Therea.er, complainant and shadow witness proceeded to meet Surender Kumar, Patwari and a.er some $me the complainant, the shadow witness acted accordingly and therea.er Surender Kumar, Patwari (pe$$oner-accused) was apprehended at shop No.32 of Grain Market, Bapoli, Panipat. Upon asking him to produce the bribe money then pe$toner- accused Surender Kumar, Patwari voluntarily suffered his disclosure statement and stated that he had asked complainant to give the bribe amount to witness Rahul, who was standing near him and he (pe$$oner-accused) told Rahul that this is his money which he will take from him (Rahul) later. He further disclosed that upon his (pe$$oner-accused) direc$ons, complainant gave the bribe amount of Rs. 85,000/- to Rahul and 2 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 03:01:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083417 CRM-M-25505-2024 therea.er Rahul took Rs. 85,000/- and went away on his motorcycle from the spot. Rahul had no idea that this money was bribe money, he took the money on his (pe$$oner-accused) trust and therea.er pe$$oner-accused further got recovered the complainant documents and his own mobile phone vide separate recovery memos. The True translated copy of the disclosure statement of pe$$oner-accused is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1.
Therea.er, hands of the complainant Yusuf were got washed on 16-3-24 and the solu$on thereof turned light pink. The currency notes, nips of hand washes were converted into sealed parcels and were taken into possession vide separate recovery memo's which were also signed by the respected witnesses. Therea.er, the statements of the witnesses were got recorded by the inves$ga$ng officer u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared.
4. That on 16-3-2024, complainant Yusuf, produced the audio recording device, before the inves$ga$ng officer, wherein demand of bribe/conversa$on was recorded between the complainant Yusuf and Surender Kumar (pe$$oner-accused). Upon which the inves$ga$ng officer with the help of ASI Surender Kumar ACB, Sub Unit Panipat, prepared three audio CD's and its transcript in Hindi and a.er conver$ng the audio CD's into a separate sealed parcels, the audio CD's, its transcripts and cer$ficates u/s 65-B, Evidence Act were taken into possession vide memo, which was signed by respec$ve witnesses. The inves$ga$ng officer also recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C on even dates. The True translated copy of transcript/recording between Complainant and pe$$oner-accused is annexed herewith as Annexure R-2."
6. I have gone through the record and heard counsel for the par es.
7. Given the nature of allega on, peculiar facts of this case, declara on of assets by the pe oner and period of pre-trial incarcera on which is more than two months, there is no jus fica on for further pre-trial incarcera on.
8. Given above, the pe on is allowed and order dated 24.05.2024 is made absolute. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
05.07.2024
Jyo Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
3
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 22-07-2024 03:01:48 :::