JUDGEMENT
ANIL KSHETARPAL,J. -
(1.)The hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.
By this order, three bail applications shall stand disposed of.
(2.)The petitioners pray for bail pending trial in a criminal case arising from FIR No.34, dtd. 15/2/2021, registered under Sec. 120-B IPC and Sec. 13(1)/7A of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station Sadar Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.
(3.)The case of the prosecution has been noticed by a Coordinate Bench in an order dtd. 28/4/2021 passed in CRM-M-16771-2021, which is extracted as under:-
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No.34 dtd. 15/2/2021 at Police Station Sadar, Narnaul under Ss. 120-B of the IPC and Sec. 13(1)/7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein it is alleged by the complainant that he is having 19 trucks and supplies brick bats etc. through his trucks. On 5/2/2021, at about 09.00 p.m., one of his trucks was intercepted by some persons, who represented that they are from mining department. Upon weighment of the truck, the same was found to be overweight to the tune of 2 M.T. 3 Qtl. than the permissible weight. The driver of the truck made the complainant talk to the persons, who were representing themselves to the mining officials. The complainant contacted one Abhey working in the office of RTA, Narnaul who was known to the complainant and requested him to get his vehicle released. Abhay sent a mobile number through whatsapp to the complainant asking the complainant to contact the said person. When the complainant contacted the said person on his mobile phone, the said person disclosed himself to be Mukesh Saini. Later, the complainant received a telephonic call from the driver that truck in question has been released. Consequently, when the complainant made a call to Mukesh Saini thanking him for getting the truck released and asked him about the fee for getting the same released, Mukesh Saini stated that the complainant was required to give "1.5 kg.". The complainant requested that some reasonable amount be settled, but Mukesh Saini disconnected the phone. There were several other conversations between Mukesh and the complainant but Mukesh stuck to his demand of 1.5 kg (which according to the counsel for the petitioner, is the code word for Rs.1.5 lakhs) On Sunday, i.e. 7/2/2021, the complainant received a telephonic call from Mahesh, proprietor, who stated that Mukesh and Abhay were coming to the crusher for collecting money. The complainant was however not present at the crusher. However, CCTV footage shows the arrival of Mukesh and Abhay at the crusher. Subsequently, there was no conversation over the telephone between the complainant and Mukesh. The complainant offered to pay an amount of Rs.50,000.00 and to pay the balance amount in 1/2 days. Upon which, Mukesh asked him to pay the said amount to Abhay. The complainant asked Abhay as to whether he should pay the amount to Bhoop to which Abhay agreed. However, the complainant did not wish to pay the amount and, accordingly, made a complaint to the Vigilance Bureau.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.