AMANPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in a case arising out of above mentioned FIR.

(2.) The FIR was lodged at the instance of the complainant Sarbjeet Bhatia wherein he stated that he is having a furniture shop opposite the FCI Godown, Kohara Road, Sahnewal where he had developed a colony approved by the Government of Punjab. Since the complainant was in need of 'CLU' (Change of Land Use) and a 'Non-Encumbrance Certificate' in respect of the said colony, he approached Amanpreet Singh, Patwari on 29/3/2023 and handed over an application to him which had been marked to him by Naib Tehsildar Sahnewal. Amanpreet Singh, upon receiving the said application told the complainant to get in touch with his representative (Karinda) Inderjeet. On 12/4/2023, the complainant visited the office of Patwari at Village Tibba where he met Inderjeet who told the complainant that the requisite report shall be made after inspecting the spot. Inderjeet visited the site along with the complainant and told the complainant that since a petrol pump was situated within 500 yards of the colony, the 'CLU' and 'Non-Encumbrance Certificate' could not be issued but in case the complainant wanted to get his work done, he would have to shell out an amount of Rs.20,000.00. The said deal was finalized at Rs.12,000.00. The complainant gave an amount of Rs.5,000.00 at the spot to Inderjeet and it was agreed that the remaining amount of Rs.7,000.00 would be paid on 17/4/2023. On 13/4/2023, Inderjeet handed over the report of Patwari Amanpreet Singh to the complainant which the complainant submitted in the office of Tehsildar and Non-Encumbrance Certificate was issued to him. The nephew of the complainant who was accompanying him at the spot on 13/4/2023 had recorded the conversation which had taken place between the complainant and Inderjeet. On 18/4/2023, the complainant received a telephone call from Inderjeet asking for balance payment. However, since the complainant did not wish to pay the bribe, he reported the matter to the Vigilance Bureau. A trap was laid and Inderjeet was caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification of Rs.7,000.00 from the complainant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that there is not even an iota of evidence to show that the petitioner had ever raised any demand or had accepted any amount from the complainant or had ever spoken to the complainant over telephone. It has been submitted that in case Inderjeet had been caught while accepting bribe in the name of the petitioner, it could be a case that Inderjeet by misusing the name of the petitioner had cheated the complainant. It has been submitted that since it is co-accused Inderjeet, who is a retired revenue official, who had been caught red-handed while accepting the bribe of Rs.7,000.00 and the petitioner was no where found near the place of occurrence, he cannot be held responsible in any manner for the misdeeds, if any, of said Inderjeet.