DEEPAK SINGH CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner, Deepak Chaudhary, who is behind bars since 29.4.2021, has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 1, dated 29.4.2021, under S.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Status report filed in terms of order dated 6.5.2021, reveals that on 29.4.2021, police received a complaint from one Ramesh Kumar that the present bail petitioner demanded bribe of Rs.40,000/- for clearing his final bills. Police, after having received aforesaid complaint, laid a trap and allegedly caught the bail petitioner read handed receiving bribe of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant, Ramesh Kumar. Since no plausible explanation came to be rendered on record by the bail petitioner qua receipt of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant, FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against him on 29.4.2021 and since then, he is behind the bars. Since the investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for grant of regular bail.

(3.) Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to completion of investigation, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency. While making this court peruse the status report, Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that there is overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that on the date of alleged incident, bail petitioner not only demanded bribe but also received Rs.40,000/- from the complainant, that too, for clearing final bills of the complainant, Ramesh Kumar, as such, he does not deserve any leniency. Lastly, Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the Challan is yet to be filed in the competent Court of law, as such, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail, who in the event of being enlarged on bail, may not only flee from justice but may also tamper with prosecution evidence, as such, his prayer for grant of bail, deserves outright rejection.