TARUN GARG Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.01, dtd. 10/1/2023 at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar, under Ss. 7, 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sec. 13(2) of P.C. Act.

(2.) The FIR was lodged at the instance of Vikram Singh, wherein it is alleged that he has a contractor license and had undertaken work of installation of water pipe line from Bus Stand Village Matana to main chowk Hanuman Mandir and had spent an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh on the said work. The complainant alleged that when he met Tarun Garg (petitioner), XEN, Public Health Department, Fatehabad at his residence for release of payment in respect of the said bill, he demanded an amount of Rs.20,000.00 and that he (complainant) paid an amount of Rs.9,000.00 to the petitioner and the remaining amount of Rs.11,000.00 was to be paid on 10/1/2023. The complainant claimed that he had recorded the said conversation on his cell phone. It is further alleged that on 5/1/2023, the complainant had met Deepak Revari (co-accused), SDO, Public Health Department in respect of the said bill and he also demanded an amount of Rs.8,000.00 for clearance of the bill and another amount of Rs.28,000.00 for clearing the previous bills and he (complainant) recorded the said conversation as well on his mobile phone. Since the matter was reported to the Vigilance Bureau, a raid was conducted. The complainant had been handed over currency notes worth Rs.27,000.00(54 X 500). The co-accused Deepak Revari was caught red handed while accepting an amount of Rs.16,000.00.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner was never caught red-handed and that the only allegation against him is that he had demanded bribe from the complainant and the said conversation had allegedly been recorded in the mobile phone of the complainant. Learned counsel submits that although in the FIR it is alleged that the petitioner had already received an amount of Rs.9,000.00 as gratification but there is no evidence in respect of the same. It has further been submitted that the alleged audio conversation does not clearly show that the petitioner had raised any demand for the purpose of clearing the bills and that, in any case, the authenticity of said audio conversation is yet to be established.