Shambhu Yadav @ Shambhu Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Heard, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Spl. P.P. for the Vigilance.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 22.09.2020 with regard to removal of the defect(s) will be complied by the petitioner.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Dumka (ACB) P.S. Case No.04 /2020 dated 03.06.2020 for the offence registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) Act, 2018..

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the complaint made by informant, Chandan Thakur before the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Dumka, it is alleged that he has lodged a case before Pathrol Police Station, in the District- Deoghar vide Pathrol P.S. Case No.63/2020 dated 15.05.2020 and thereafter the accused of that case, namely, Kavita Devi, W/o Jagat Thakur has filed a counter case bearing Pathrol P.S. Case No.64 of 2020 under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354B, 448, 506/34 IPC.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the allegation, this petitioner (Shambhu Yadav) being the investigating officer of both the cases went to the village of informant on 16.05.2020 and demanded Rs.10,000/- for removing the allegation made under Sections 354B & 379 IPC and on negotiation, the petitioner was ready to accept Rs.5,000/- for such work. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the statement of the informant has been recorded, as such, case diary may be called for.

Learned counsel for the Vigilance (State), while opposing the prayer for regular bail, has submitted that after recording of the statement of the informant in the case, nothing will change the situation, as admittedly the investigating officer of both the cases is petitioner (Shambhu Yadav) and cases were under investigation before the petitioner being Investigating officer, as such, work of the informant was pending for which petitioner demanded bribe and accepted the same.

Learned counsel for the Vigilance (State) has further submitted that if a police officer is corrupt, it is very difficult to lodge case by an innocent person, as such, this petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

Considering rival submissions of the parties and looking into fact of the case that the petitioner, being the I.O. of both the cases, was caught red-handed after following all the formalities under the P.C. Act, while taking bribe of Rs.2,000/-, as such, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.