Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Respondent/CBI per-contra, by filing the objections has opposed the bail on the grounds, that case FIR No. RC0042022A0007 dated 11.05.2022registered with Police Station CBI, ACB, Jammu for commission of offences under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 120-B IPC on the basis of complaint dated 10.05.2022 lodged by one Nand Kishore S/o Yash Paul Sharma, R/o Ward No. 12 Shiv Nagar, R. S. Pura for demand of bribe of Rs. 15,000/- by the accused Devinder Sharma, Plant Protection Officer and Rajinder Kumar, Field Assistant, both working in the office of Directorate of Agriculture, Jammu for approval of application of the complainant for addition of pesticide products of different firms in the license of his cooperative society M/s Deva Batala Agriculture Cooperative Ltd.; on receipt of the complaint, the verification thereof was carried out by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, SI wherein the demand of bribe by both the accused Davinder Sharma, Plant Protection Officer and Rajinder Kumar, Field Assistant from the complainant was confirmed pursuant to which a trap was laid and accused person namely Davinder Sharma, who had entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Rajinder Kumar, was caught red-handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 12,000/- from the complainant whereby, the said accused persons were arrested on 11.05.2022 and taken into custody after following all the legal procedure;

4. Ms. Monika Kohli ld. counsel for the respondent-CBI, per-contra, has sought the rejection of the bail of the petitioner/accused by vociferously projecting arguments, that on 11.05.2022 a trap was laid wherein accused namely Davinder Sharma was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 12,000/- from the complainant whereby the petitioner/accused was arrested on the same day and taken into custody. It is argued, that the case is at very initial stage of investigation and the petitioner/accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right as he is indicted in non-bailable offence, and there is every likelihood that if the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail at this stage he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and influence the witnesses thereby causing irreparable harm to the fair investigation of the case, moreso, petitioner/accused has abused his official position and has committed heinous crime under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, petitioner/accused is highly influential and his criminal act is against the societal interest. It is moreso argued, that while granting bail the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment etc. and larger interests of the public/State, the words „reasonable grounds for believing‟ used by the Legislature for the purpose of granting bail means, that the Court while dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused, due to involvement of government officials in accepting the illegal gratification/bribe the confidence of common person has been shaken, and moreso the respondent has found cash from the petitioner/accused. In support of her arguments, ld. counsel for the respondent-CBI has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in, (i) (2013) 7 Scale 15 (Central Bureau of Investigation vs V. Vijay Sai Reddy), (ii)2017(2) RCR (Criminal) 232 (Avneesh Kumar Gupta v CBI) & (iii) judgment/order of J&K High Court rendered in Bail App No. 39/2021 (Darbara Singh--Applicant(s) v/s Union Territory of J&K-- Respondent(s).

(I) Prima-facie or reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner/accused have committed the offences:-

It is profitable to reiterate here, that case FIR No. RC0042022A0007 dated 11.05.2022registered with Police Station CBI, ACB, Jammu for commission of offences under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 120-B IPC against petitioner/accused on the basis of complaint dated 10.05.2022 lodged by one Nand Kishore S/o Yash Paul Sharma R/o Ward No. 12, Shiv Nagar R. S. Pura, Jammu for demand of bribe of Rs. 12,000/-, on receipt of the complaint the verification thereof was carried out by Sh. Sanjay Kumar SI wherein the demand of bribe by Davinder Sharma, Plant Protection Officer, Jammu from the complainant was confirmed, pursuant to which a trap was laid and the accused person namely Davinder Sharma was caught red-handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 12,000/- from the complainant, whereby, the said accused person was arrested on 11.05.2022. From the allegations set out in the FIR, it clearly transpires, that there is a prima-facie case against the petitioner/accused.

In [Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy (2013) 7 Scale 15], relied by Ld. Counsel for CBI, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that while granting bail court has to keep in mind various factors for grant or refusal of bail viz; nature of accusation, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of punishment, character of accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with and larger interest of public/state and other similar considerations. To my considered view, the observations of the Apex Court would be strictly followed in the case in hand. In 2017(2) RCR (Criminal) 232 (Avneesh Kumar Gupta Vs CBI) relied by Ld. Counsel for CBI, Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand held, that graft case is entirely difference from other common offences, as such, bail in such cases should be considered with great circumspection and the courts have to strike a balance between societal interest and individual interest and there should be zero tolerance to the corruption. In judgment/order of J&K High Court rendered in bail App. 39/2021 (Darbara Singh--Applicant(S) V/s Union Territory of J&K--Respondent(S)], relied upon by Ld. Counsel for CBI, Hon'ble J&K High Court in a graft case refused bail to the accused by taking into consideration the status/progress of investigation that while laying a trap accused was caught red handed on 29-01-2021 by CBI/ACB Jammu wherein while demanding and accepting bribe the bribe amount of Rs. 50,000/- was recovered from the accused and also from searches of his office and residential premises cash of Rs. 1,45,000/- from his Jammu residence and sum of Rs. 5,10,000/-