Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1467 (PNJ)

Jaswinder Kaur v. Central Bureau Of Investigation

2020-07-21

SANJAY KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar, J. (ORAL) - CRM-17277-2020 Application is ordered. Reply of the respondent-CBI is taken on record. CRM-M-19742-2020 2. The petitioner is one of the accused in FIR No. RC0052020A0006 dated 29.6.2020 on the file of Police Station CBI, ACB, CHG, Chandigarh, registered under Sections 120-B and 467 IPC along with Sections 7 and 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By way of this petition, she seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioner was the Station House Officer, Police Station, Manimajra, at the relevant time. The case against her is that she asked for and received illegal gratification in the course of her official duties, when one Randhir Singh approached her with the complaint that he had been cheated by one Gurdeep Singh and his wife. According to Randhir Singh, the couple obtained about Rs. 30.00 lakh from him promising that they would secure a job for his wife. Thereafter, in the context of the compromise allegedly effected by and between the parties, the petitioner was stated to have demanded and received a bribe. 4. It would be wholly premature for this Court to go into the merits of the matter at this stage when the investigation is yet to be completed. Suffice it to state that the admitted conversation between the petitioner and Bhagwan Singh, the co-accused, is enough to warrant investigation into the allegations made against the petitioner. 5. Further, the reply filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation indicates that the petitioner, who was asked to attend the CBI office on 30.6.2020 in connection with this case, failed to turn up but made a false entry in the Daily Diary Register at Manimajra Police Station to the effect that she had returned from the CBI office. That apart, she did not report for duty after she was transferred to the Police Station at Sector 26, Chandigarh, and remained incommunicado. She was placed under suspension from service on 2.7.2020 and still remains untraceable. 6. Being a member of a uniformed service, the conduct of the petitioner, as set out supra, leaves a lot to be desired. It is for the petitioner to face the investigation and prove her case. The failure of the petitioner to join the investigation and her reticence in coming forward even now disentitle her from seeking relief at this stage. Being a member of a uniformed service, the conduct of the petitioner, as set out supra, leaves a lot to be desired. It is for the petitioner to face the investigation and prove her case. The failure of the petitioner to join the investigation and her reticence in coming forward even now disentitle her from seeking relief at this stage. More so, as the allegations levelled against her are serious in nature and her interrogation and cooperation with the investigation would be utmost necessary. This Court therefore finds no grounds made out to grant any relief to the petitioner. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed.