In CRM-M-15835-2023 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- P&H HC refuses to grant anticipatory bail to SDO for allegedly demanding bribe in order to release complainant’s payment withheld by Punjab Mandi Board
Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill [24-05-2023]

Read Order:Sudesh Kumar Vs. State Of Punjab 

Chandigarh, May 25, 2023:  After considering the fact that a transcript of the conversation which had taken place between the complainant and the petitioner-accused reflected that there had been negotiations between them as regards payment of amount as commission to the accused, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the bail petition of the SDO of the Punjab Mandi Board in a case relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The petitioner approached the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Gurvidner Singh Gill seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case arising out of an FIR registered at Amritsar Vigilance Bureau under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The FIR was registered at the instance of Darshan Singh who had been running a construction and repair work of roads on contract basis under the name and style of M/s L.T. Builders and after completion of work he was not returned the security amount. It was stated that the department i.e. Punjab Mandi Board withheld an amount of Rs 10,96,374 out of the security amount which had been deposited by him. 

Similarly, another amount of Rs 7,43,854 out of the security amount in respect of another work allotted to him had not been paid to him despite completion of work.A total balance security amount of Rs 34,33,002 had not been paid to him. 

It was the complainant’s case that he had been making oral as well as written requests to Executive Engineer, Amandeep Singh and to SDO Sudesh Kumar for the purpose of release of his dues particularly the security amounts but the Executive Engineer had been dilly-dallying the matter and demanded an amount of Rs 5 lakh from him as illegal gratification for releasing payments. 

Similarly, even the SDO demanded an illegal gratification of Rs 1 lakh. Since the complainant had an amount of Rs 20,000 only with him at that time, he gave the same to the SDO but he managed to videograph the entire incident.

The petitioner submitted that the transcript of the audio-conversation, as annexed with the reply filed by the State, did not clearly reflect making of any demand on part of the petitioner.

The Bench noted that there were specific allegations levelled in the FIR as against the petitioner SDO and co-accused- Executive Engineer pertaining to demand of bribe for the purpose of release of the payments due to be made to complainant by the department which were due either being a part of security amount deposited by complainant or on account of construction work/repair work executed by complainant. 

“The State has filed its reply wherein a transcript of the conversation which had taken place between the complainant and the petitioner has been annexed which does show that there have been negotiations between them as regards payment of amount as commission to the petitioner”, the Bench said.

Thus, finding no case for grant of anticipatory bail, the Bench dismissed the same.