Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 637 (JK)

Arish Parvez v. UT of J&K

2022-11-17

MOHD.AKRAM CHOWDHARY

body2022
JUDGMENT : MOHD. AKRAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Through the medium of the instant petition filed under section 438(1) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks bail, in anticipation of his arrest, in case FIR No. 5/2022 registered with Police Station, ACB, (Central), Jammu under section 7 P.C. Act read with Section 120-B IPC. 2. Respondent-Bureau registered the FIR in question against the petitioner upon a complaint purported to have been made by one Harmeet Singh, who had alleged that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as bribe from him, for issuance of a Fard through one of his tout, namely, Jatin. 3. During the course of the trap laid by the respondent-Bureau, the said Jatin was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as an advance towards the final amount of Rs. 35,000/- Petitioner, however, was neither present on spot at the time of laying a trap by the officials of respondent- Bureau nor had he received the trap money. 4. It has been asserted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence, whatsoever, much less the one alleged in the FIR and the petitioner is stated to have no connection or relation with the accused Jatin having been arrested by the Bureau. 5. It is further alleged that on account of the registration of the FIR in question and arrest of the above named Jatin, the officials of the respondent-Bureau are seeking arrest of the petitioner and as a consequence thereof, the petitioner has strong reason to believe that he would be arrested in connection with the FIR in question without any lawful justification. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this Court through a bail order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the Court of Additional Special Judge, (Anti Corruption), Jammu, where under the main accused i.e. the above named Jatin (Jatinder Kumar) has been admitted to a regular bail. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in view of the grant of regular bail to the main accused, the petitioner also becomes entitled to the concession of bail, in anticipation of his arrest. 8. This Court vide interim order dated 25.05.2022 had admitted the petitioner to an interim bail subject to certain conditions and with a further stipulation that this order shall be subject to alteration/modification/vacation on laying motion. 8. This Court vide interim order dated 25.05.2022 had admitted the petitioner to an interim bail subject to certain conditions and with a further stipulation that this order shall be subject to alteration/modification/vacation on laying motion. Pursuant to notice, the reply has been filed by the respondent asserting therein that the petitioner, who happened to be a public servant as Patwari of Patwar Halqa Gangyal Jammu, has demanded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- from the complainant directly and later through his tout namely Jatinder Kumar @ Jatin for issuance of Fard Intikhab, however, on negotiation, the bribe amount was settled at Rs. 15,000/- as advance payment and that during the trap laid by the ACB(Central) after receipt of the complaint on 10.05.2022 apprehended the tout Jatin red handed, while demanding and accepting the bribe money of Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant at the instance of the petitioner in his office. It has been further submitted that the Fard Intikhab for a land measuring 6.6 marlas falling under Khasra No. 150 min situated at village Gangyal had been duly prepared in all respects by the petitioner had also been recovered at the time of trap proceedings, on the revelations made by the tout Jatin from the office of the petitioner/Patwari Arish Parvez which he had kept in the drawer of his office table. That the revenue document had been recovered at the instance of Jatin, though, the petitioner was supposed to be custodian of the said document. It has been asserted that the presence of tout Jatin at the office of petitioner, his demand of bribe on behalf of the petitioner in lieu of Fard, acceptance of bribe from the complainant and thereafter, recovery of Fard from the office table of the petitioner at the instance and disclosure of tout Jatin makes it all the more clear that how close Jatin was known and connected to petitioner/accused Arish Parvez, as a facilitator in the crime. 10. Heard and considered. 11. 10. Heard and considered. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner, who had been admitted to interim bail in anticipation of his arrest, was not at all required for any custodial interrogation as the other accused who was alleged to have been received the bribe amount from the complainant, had also been admitted to a regular bail by the Special Court, and that the investigation of the case has almost been completed for laying the charge sheet in the Court of law. He further submitted that the interim bail granted in favour of the petitioner be made absolute. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, vehemently, opposed the grant of bail in favour of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation of the case despite directions from this Court and submitted that the petitioner had never chosen to appear before the Investigating Agency to plead his innocence, rather chose to remain elusive. She finally submitted that the bail petition be rejected so that the Investigating Agency is in a position to investigate the matter after interrogating the petitioner, who is the main accused in the case. 13. Since the petitioner had already been admitted to interim bail by this Court subject to certain conditions and enjoined upon to associate himself with the investigation of the case with a stipulation that modification of the order can be sought as well. The respondent- Investigating Agency has, however, not chosen to lay any motion that the petitioner had either hampered the investigation or not cooperated with the Investigating Agency. Otherwise also, the Investigating Agency had all the powers to associate the petitioner with it, even if he was elusive as alleged. Since the investigation has been completed and only the charge sheet is yet to be laid after formal sanction is required, there will be no purpose to reject the bail of the petitioner at this stage for the purpose of investigation. 14. For the aforesaid reasons and observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed and the interim bail granted in favour of the petitioner vide interim order dated 25.05.2022 is made absolute, subject to all the conditions imposed therein. 15. The petition is, accordingly, granted and disposed of.