CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Kamlesh Kumar Singh vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 30 June 2017 · Citation: (2017) 06 JH CK 0043

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shree Chandrashekhar
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=6460>Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988</a>, <a href=6460-7>Section 7</a>, <a href=6460-13>Section 13(2)</a>, <a href=6460-13>Section 13(1)(d)</a> - Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official ac
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
3646 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

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

6 paragraphs · 334 words
1.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

2.

Contending that to wreck vengeance, for the petitioner did not agree for payment of salary to the informant for the period he remained absent unauthorisedly, the petitioner has been implicated in Spl. (A.C.B.) Case No. 12 of 2017 registered under Sections 7/13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Mrs. J. Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail.

3.

Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned Special P.P. Submits that before laying a trap the agency first verifies the veracity of complaint and thereafter only further steps in the matter are taken. He vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

4.

The materials on record would indicate that the petitioner who is aged about 58 years has been made an accused at the verge of his retirement. He has an unblemished service record. He is in judicial custody since 30.03.2017 and now, a charge-sheet has been filed on 23.05.2017. Order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX-cum-Special Judge, Dhanbad would indicate that the petitioner has taken a specific plea that when he refused to sanction payment of salary to the informant for the period of unauthorised absence, the informant used to threaten him for implicating him in a false case.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX-cum-Special Judge, (A.C.B.), Dhanbad in connection with Spl. (A.C.B.) Case No. 12 of 2017. It is indicated that if the petitioner plays delaying tactic during the trial, the prosecution may move an appropriate application for cancellation of his bail.

6.

This application is allowed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court through FAX.