JAI NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.S. Hajela learned counsel for the C.B.I.

(2.) This application is filed by the applicant Jai Narayan with a prayer to release him on bail during pendency of the trial in Case Crime no. RC-No. 9(A) of 2005 under Section 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. C.B.I. Dehradun, because the bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the learned Special Judge, (C.B.I.), Anti Corruption Act, U.P. East, Ghaziabad.

(3.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that the applicant was posted at Railway Station, Hapur as a Company Commander of R.P.F. It is said that the first informant Ayub Wali Khan, who has having the power of attorney to look after the work of the Contractor M/s Smt Noor Jahan Begam Catering and Vending, N.R. Hapur Junction, who is son of Noor Jahan Begam. It is alleged that the applicant was demanding a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- per month through his subordinate Head Constable Sriman Lal Meena. The first informant was asked by Sriman Lal Meena to pay a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- on 1.3.2005 and he was asked to meet the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant also demanded the same amount of bribe on the same day and the first informant was asked to pay the bribe of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. by 10th of each month. The first informant has taped this conversation and made a complaint to C.B.I. On the basis of complaint made by first informant a trap team was constituted and on 6.3.2005 a trap was made and the applicant was arrested by the C.B.I., when he accepted the amount of Rs. 10,000/- as a bribe, which was recovered from the possession of the applicant. The recovery was made in the presence of the independent witnesses and to ascertain the genuineness of the illegal acceptance of bribe solution of Sodium Carbonate was also used, which gave positive result to establish that the same amount was accepted by the applicant and thereafter, recovered from his possession, because the recovered amount of Rs. 10,000/- was of tainted G.C. notes which was tallied with the G.C. note details mentioned in pre-trap memorandum and it was compared from the denomination and the amount mentioned in the pretrap memorandum which was found the same. The recovered amount was sealed and the applicant was taken into custody on 6.3.2005. The recovery memo was signed by the independent witnesses.