Jammu), February-27-2023-( JNF):- Special Judge CBI Jammu RK Wattal rejected the bail applications of Chief Accounts Officer (KAS), Jammu & Kashmir Tourism Development Corporation and a Lecturer, Govt. Polytechnic College in a bribery of Rs. 2.3 lakh.
According to the CBI on 14.02.2023 stating there in that case FIR No RC0042023A0003 dated 08.02.2023 has been registered by the CBI, ACB, Jammu u/s 120-B r/w 7 of PC Act, 1988 on the basis of complaint dated 07.02.2023 lodged by Pankaj Kumar Verma for demand of bribe of Rs. 2.20 lacs by the accused Sajjad Ahmed, Chief Accounts Officer JKTDC, Jammu through Shokat Ali, Lecturer Govt. Polytechnic college Jammu for processing payment in respect of bills submitted by firm of the complainant.
The verification of complaint was carried out by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, PSI wherein demand of bribe by the accused Sajjad Ahmed from the complainant through Shoket Ali was confirmed. Accordingly, case FIR No RC0042023A0003 dated 08.02.2023 has been registered by the CBI, ACB, Jammu u/s 120-B r/w 7 of PC Act, 1988 against the accused Sajjad Ahmed and Shokat Ali.
That a Trap was laid and the accused Shokat Ali Lecturer, Govt. Polytechnic College, Jammu was caught red-handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 2.30 lacs from the complainant on behalf of accused Sajjad Ahmed. During further trap proceedings, the accused Sajjad Ahmed was also caught red-handed in the presence of independent witnesses, while accepting the bribe amount from the accused Shokat Ali. The accused Sajjad Agmed, Chief Accounts Officer JKTDC, Jammu and Shokat Ali Lecturer, Govt. Polytechnic College, Jammu entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and demanded & accepted bribe of Rs. 2.30 lacs from the complainant. The said accused persons were arrested on 08.02.2023 and taken into custody after following all the legal procedure. The information of arrest was given to their family members.
Special Judge CBI Jammu RK Wattal after hearing PP VK Dogra for the CBI whereas Sr. Adv Pranav Kohli and Adv Prince Khanna or the applicants, observed that keeping in view that even if fundamental rights of the accused are given due weightage still the stage of investigation, likelihood of pollution of prosecution evidence by the accused the amount of bribe recovered in trap proceedings is not insignificant amount and prima facie speaks of Audacity of the accused committing a daredevil act with the help of his associate presumptably under section 20 of P.C.Act and assumes gravity and thus effect of release affecting public cause cannot be ignored though presumption of innocence of the accused pervades throughout the trial. Perusal of the CD file produced by the prosecution shows that statements of some of the witnesses have been recorded but the statement of the complainant who is stated to be presently outside the territory of J&K and that of the shadow witness and some other important witnesses are yet to be recorded and document to be collected which shows that investigation is not complete as yet and in case the accused are released on bail the same will be hampered and the witnesses may also be subject to the influence of the accused. Keeping in view the above discussion this case does not seem to be within the general scope of law of Criminal jurisprudence and falls under the exception. So no case of bail is made out at this stage. The same is rejected. JNF