Jammu September-11-2023-:- Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Jammu OP Bhagat rejected the pre-arrest bail application of then SHO Vijaypur namely Ali Imran, ASI Rattan Paul and Head Constable Kewal Chand involved in corruption case.
According to the ACB that Anti-corruption Bureau received communication NO.GAD- along with its enclosures from GAD which apart from approval of competent authority under section 17-A P.C.Act 1988 inter alia reveals that subsequent to transfer of case FIR No.55/2022, P/S Vijaypur U/Ss 376,458,506,166-A IPC r/w Sections 3/4 and 21 of POCSO to Crime Branch (EOW) Jammu, it has surfaced during investigation that Inspector Ali Imran S/o Arshad Ahmed R/o Ward No.8 Kishtwar, ASI Rattan paul S/o Sansar Chand R/o Rarha Tehsil Ramgarh, Samba and HC Kewal Chand S/o Ram Chand R/o Bari Kabila, Tehsil Vijaypur have in furtherance of criminal conspiracy among themselves dishonestly and by abuse of their official position indulged in burking of crime by accepting bribe of Rs.1.50 lacs for hushing up of criminal case for commission of rape on a minor girl. The aforesaid acts of omission and commission on part of above named accused public servants disclosed commission of offence punishable U/S 7 of P.C. Act 1988 r/w section 120-B & 166-A/IPC. Accordingly, instant case FIR No.06/2023 was registered in P/S ACB Jammu against (i) Inspector Ali Imran S/o Arshad Ahmed R/o W.No.6 Kishtwar, (ii) ASI Rattan Paul S/o Sansar Chand R/o Rarha, Tehsil Ramgarh, Samba and (iii) HC Kewal Chand S/o Ram Chand R/o Bari Kabila, Tehsil Vijaypur and investigation of the case was entrusted to Dy.S.P.Dedar Singh of JSK Wing of P/S ACB jammu.
Additional Sessions Judge Jammu OP Bhagat after hearing Advocate Pawan Khajuria for the applicants whereas APP Anoop Kumar for the ACB, observed that the investigation of the case is at initial stage and detail/relevant documents are required to be obtained/seized from concerned departments and statements of material witnesses acquainted with the facts and circumstance of the case are required to be recorded. In case the accused persons are granted bail, there is every apprehension that the applicants/accused will tamper with the evidence and influence the prosecution witnesses. In view of the submission made herein above, grant of bail to the accused persons at this stage will hamper the investigation of the case.
Court also considered the prayer of the applicants for bail in anticipation of their arrest and in the light of the given facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the proposition of law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases (supra) and having regard to enormity of crime committed and the evidence collected in support of the allegations, the applicants-accused are not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail as prayed for by them because grant of bail to the accused would shatter the confidence of public in general and it would adversely affect the ongoing investigation and court at this stage has to take a prima facie view of the material supplied by investigating agency. Further, the alleged offences committed and attributed to the accused are against society and Court cannot fore-sight of the fact that such offences are on rise and are required to be curbed with heavy hands. JNF