RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Application has been filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.RC0072022A0007, registered at police station C.B.I., SPE, Dehradun under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act, 1988'), and Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) Heard Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) Opposing the bail application, Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, contended that the complainant and his wife had purchased a property in the year, 1998. Their name could not be recorded on that property. Complainant moved an application on 30/12/2019 for mutation. Co-accused ' Shailendra Sharma, Office Superintendent, asked the complainant to give him an amount of Rs.50,000.00. He again met Shailendra Sharma on 14/9/2022, who directed him to meet Raman Kumar Aggarwal, Tax Clerk (present applicant). He (complainant) met the applicant who informed him that the required death certificate is not available on the record. He again met Shailendra Sharma. Co-accused Shailendra Sharma, in presence of the present applicant, again demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000.00. On the request of the complainant, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.25,000.00. Co-accused ' Shailendra Sharma directed the complainant to handover the said bribe amount to the present applicant. Applicant was present on the spot at that time. Applicant also provided his mobile number 9917806060 to the complainant and asked him to come along with the said bribe amount on 15/9/2022. Based on the complaint, a trap was laid on 15/9/2022. Voice of the complainant and the present applicant were recorded and applicant was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs.25,000.00. The voice recorder was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The report of the laboratory confirms the case of the prosecution. Prosecution has examined one witness in the present matter. The entire incident was captured in the C.C.T.V.