High CourtsSingle Bench

Vikram Kumar @ Vikram Jee vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 17 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 JH CK 0158

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 10054 Of 2020
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

25 paragraphs · 463 words

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the

present.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Dhanbad (A.C.B.) P.S. Case No.08 of 2020 corresponding to Special (Vigilance) Case

No.09 of 2020 registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act

2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was trapped while accepting the bribe amount

of Rs.14,000/- from the informant for passing a bill by the co-accused Electrical Superintending Engineer from the informant- Sabir Ansari. It is

submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the petitioner was working as an outsourcing employee and as

the co- accused told the petitioner that the informant will give him Rs.14,000/- and hence, on the instructions of the co-accused, he received the said

money. It is then submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case and to pay ad interim victim compensation of

Rs.14,000/- to the informant as ad interim victim compensation without prejudice to his defence in this case subject to final decision of the case. It is

lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 28.08.2020 which is evident from para-1 of the instant bail application. Hence it is

submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts of this case, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on depositing a demand draft of Rs.14,000/- as ad

interim victim compensation without prejudice to his defence in this case drawn in favour of the informant- Sabir Ansari and on furnishing bail bond of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge-II-cum Special

Judge (A.C.B.) Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad (A.C.B.) P.S. Case No.08 of 2020 corresponding to Special (Vigilance) Case No.09 of 2020

with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case.

In case the petitioner deposits the said demand draft, the court below is directed to issue notice to the informant- Sabir Ansari and on his proper

identification, the court below shall handover the same to him forthwith.

In case the petitioner pays Rs.14,000/- to the informant- Sabir Ansari, learned court below will pass an appropriate order regarding disbursal of the

same at the time of conclusion of trial.