AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 317 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. RC0072024A0001 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI, ACB Dehradun, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application has already been rejected on merits on 16.07.2024.
It is a case of demanding and accepting the illegal gratification by the applicant, who was a Police Officer in the Railway Protection force. The complainant made a complaint; the CBI verified it and laid a trap. The applicant was arrested red handed. The transcript of the conversation has also been prepared.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that now the complainant has been examined as PW1 and in para 3 of his statement, he has stated that he has taken Rs.10,000/- loan from the applicant. Reference has also been made to para 4 of the statement of PW1, the complainant, wherein, he has stated he had given a report against the applicant as was told to him. He has also referred to a part of the cross examination of the PW1, as made on behalf of the applicant.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI would submit that in para 5 of the statement, PW1, the complainant has stated that he had given money to the applicant as bribe as was demanded by the applicant. He would also refer to paras 11 and 62 of the statement of PW1, the complainant to argue that, in fact, the prosecution case has been admitted by the PW1, the complainant.
Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
The bail application is rejected.