SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner, Satish Kumar in case bearing FIR No.08 dated 03.05.2019, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Mohali.

(2.) Allegations against the present petitioner are that complainantRam Murti had purchased one LIG Flat No.31 of Improvement Trust at Ropar in the name of his wife, Santosh Kumari and allotment letter had already been issued. Complainant wanted to sell the said flat and for that, he was to get sale deed executed in the name of his wife. In order to get the sale deed registered in the name of wife of the complainant, some official from the Improvement Trust was to appear before the Sub Registrar. Complainant had applied to the Improvement Trust in the month of February 2019, but even after expiry of two months, no action was taken. The complainant then contacted petitioner - Satish Kumar, Junior Engineer, who kept on avoiding the complainant for number of days. The complainant also met Satish Kumar in his office and at that time he raised a demand of bribe money for him and one clerk Parveen Kumar to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. The complainant made part payment of bribe money of Rs.6,000/- to petitioner-Satish Kumar and Parveen Kumar and he was to bring the remaining amount on 30.04.2019. On 30.04.2019, complainant paid Rs.1500/- to Parveen Kumar and he told him to pay the remaining amount of Rs.7500/- to Satish Kumar, Junior Engineer on 03.05.2019. Thereafter, the complainant contacted Vigilance Bureau and raid was conducted and bribe money of Rs.7500/- was recovered from the possession of co-accused Parveen Kumar.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had not raised any demand of bribe money. He was not to perform any duty in connection with which he was to demand bribe money. The alleged recovery of bribe money is not from the petitioner, rather from co-accused Parveen Kumar. So, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is still ready to join the investigation.