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
16 paragraphs · 422 wordsFIR No
Dated
Police Station
Section/s
302
25.9.2021
Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra
7 of Prevention of Corruption Act
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J
The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.
The FIR was lodged at the instance of Jagjit Singh, wherein it has been alleged that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Kanchan and they were blessed with two sons. The matrimonial relation faced rough weather. It is alleged that on 3.7.2021, wife of the complainant left the house and on the very next i.e. on 4.7.2021, the complainant received a telephone call from ASI Neelam Devi (petitioner), Women Police Station, Kurukshetra, informing him that his wife has filed a complaint. As per the allegations, during the proceedings in the Women Police Station, the petitioner informed that FIR No. 24, dated 9.9.2021, was registered against the complainant and his mother and instead of paying Rs.50,000/- to the lawyer, he should pay Rs.30,000/- and she will arrange bail from the police station itself. The following day, she called the complainant on phone and demanded Rs.30,000/- and the conversation was recorded.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no credible evidence to connect her with the allegations made by the complainant.
Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that there is recording of audio conversation between the complainant and the petitioner, which clearly shows the complicity of the petitioner. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that investigation is complete and challan stands presented and that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.
This Court has considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court.
It is no doubt correct that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, which are mainly based on recording of audio conversation. The investigation already stands completed and challan has been presented. Charges are yet to be framed and as many as 14 PWs have been cited. In these circumstances, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose as conclusion of trial is likely to consume time. The instant petition, as such, is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
It is, however, directed that the petitioner shall furnish her voice samples as and when directed.