Special Judge Anti-Corruption (CBI cases) J&K, R K Wattal, while disposing of different applications, dismissed bail applications of Patwari, Junior Engineer and Assistant Garrison Engineers in trap cases.
According to CBI, FIR No RC0042022A0002 dated January 15, 2022, was registered by CBI, ACB, Jammu under section 7 of PC Act, 1988 based on a complaint dated January 13, 2022, lodged by one Harbinder Pal Singh, son of Ajit Singh, resident of village Kotli Arjun Singh, Tehsil R S Pura, alleging demand of bribe of Rs 50,000 by an accused namely Ashok Kumar, Patwari, Patwar Halqa Jassore, Tehsil R S Pura for issuing Fard in respect of land owned by his father. The verification of complaint was carried out wherein demand of bribe by accused from the complainant was confirmed and accordingly, the case was registered against accused Ashok Kumar, Patwari. Further, on January 15, 2022, a trap was laid down and accused Ashok Kumar Patwari. Patwar Halqa Jassore was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 35,000 from the complainant in the presence of independent witnesses.
While rejecting the bail application of Ashok Kumar Patwari, Special Judge CBI R K Wattal observed that when there are possibilities that the accused will use his influence in shutting the mouth of persons who are likely to depose against him in the investigation for further disclosures in support of crime, and it seems unfit to grant bail. ”
Considering bail only on the premises that the accused is behind bars for three to four weeks is not justified. Although, as per the prosecution, the witnesses, verifying officials are yet to be examined, and persons in the organisation of the accused acquainted with facts relating to crime are yet to be recorded, some more documents are required to be collected from the accused in the case released on bail may use his connections and influence which may hamper the remaining investigation and compel witnesses not to depose against him. “The Court observed these circumstances have to be weighed while considering bail in trap cases,” the Court observed.
In another case, as per CBI, FIR No RC0042022A0001 dated January 6, 2022, was registered by CBI, ACB, Jammu under section 120-B of IPC read with section 7 of PC Act 1988 based on the complaint dated January 5, 2022, lodged by one Sameer Ajrawat, son of Romesh Kumar, resident of 208, Sector-4, Channi Himmat, alleging demand of bribe of Rs. 25,000 by accused Mahesh Chandra Gangwar JE and Mohd Imran Ullah, Assistant Garrison Engineer (AGE), both officials of GE, MES Satwari, Jammu, for issuance of the completion certificate for processing of pending.
Verification of complaint was carried out according to which demand of bribe from the complainant, by both the accused persons, was confirmed.
Accordingly, the case was registered against the accused engineers. However, a trap was laid on January 7, 2022, and both accused Mahesh Chandra Gangwar JE, and Mohd Imran Ullah AGE were caught red-handed while demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 10,000 each from the complainant.
Both the accused were arrested and taken into custody as per the procedure established by law. However, while rejecting bail applications of JE and AGE, Special Judge CBI R K Wattal observed that bail couldn’t be construed routinely. “Corruption is a menace in society and like a termite which hollows a society from within. It is one of the biggest roadblocks in the development and progress of society and the nation.
But unfortunately, sometimes, the biggest crocodiles escape with impunity in a system, and small fries are entrapped.
But the authority of law is required to be imposed without making a distinction between big and small offenders when the nature of criminality of corruption in public servants largely affects the public with whom they deal, mainly when such cases are on the rise and the people dealing with the authorities of the government are the victim of this evil.
It is in this context that matter of bail has also to be considered in the background of the abovementioned factors, and prima-facie consideration of these factors for limited purposes cannot be said to be a comment prejudicial to the rights and interests of the accused” the Court directed.
