PARVEER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has preferred instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre -arrest bail feeling apprehension of his arrest in case FIR No.32 dated January 31, 2015, under Sections 7 & 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station, Meham, District Rohtak.

(2.) TERSELY put, case of prosecution is that on January 31, 2015, Naresh Kumar complainant moved an application before Mr. Vijay Pal, DSP (Head Quarter), Rohtak, unfolding that he is an agriculturist by profession and had purchased a tractor make "Swaraj 855" from Swaraj Agency, Bhiwani Road, Rohtak, for a consideration of Rs. 6,34,000/ -. A sum of Rs. 4,70,000/ - was taken as loan by him from Kotak Mahendra, D Park, Rohtak. He had only deposited two instalments but subsequently failed to deposit regular instalments. On account of non -payment of instalments, bank officers accompanied by officials of Police Station, Meham, visited his house on January 28, 2015 and took away his tractor. Subsequently, he had taken back his tractor pleading that it will hamper his agricultural work. Thereafter, bank officer lodged a complaint in Police Station, Meham against him. SHO, Police Station Meham i.e. petitioner, put -forth a demand of illegal gratification and started extending threats that in case an amount by way of bribe is not paid, he will involve him in a case of dacoity and a case will also be registered against him for taking away tractor forcibly from bank officers. On March 31, 2015, SHO, Police Station, Meham arrested him alongwith the tractor and he was put behind bars. He rang up Sonu @ Anil, brother of petitioner, on his Mobile No.9416141725, who also demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lac to settle the matter. Ultimately, deal was settled to the tune of Rs. 45,000/ - which was paid by him to Sonu @ Anil. Said amount was recovered from Sonu @ Anil when he was arrested after the registration of instant case.

(3.) CONTENTION of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner has been falsely implicated in instant case and has no concern either with tractor or alleged demand of a sum of Rs. 45,000/ - as illegal gratification. Moreover, petitioner is serving in Police Department since December 19, 2001 and remained Incharge of various police stations from time to time and is having good service record to his credit.