Punjab and Haryana High Court dismisses HCS officer’s bail plea in corruption case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of an HCS officer in a corruption case. Justice Anoop Chitkara of the high court asserted there was prima facie evidence connecting petitioner Meenakshi Dahiya with the recovery of Rs 1 lakh bribe from her cook.
Justice Chitkara asserted the cook was arrested red-handed on May 29. “The police recovered the bribe money from him. The calls and transcripts indicate the petitioner’s involvement, which is corroborated by the complainant’s complain.”
Dahiya had moved the court seeking anticipatory bail after a case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered at the ACB police station in Panchkula. The complaint in the matter was lodged by retired district fishery officer “to take action against the officer/official who demanding bribe in lieu of government work”.
He had alleged that an inquiry officer declared him innocent in a matter before sending the file to Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Fishery, to drop the chargesheet against him. He accepted the inquiry report before sending the file to the minister concerned, who gave his approval and the file was marked down to the additional chief secretary for issuance of an order in this regard.
“Dahiya, senior HCS, joint secretary, has firstly called me in her office at Panchkula on April 17, through Joginder Singh her senior scale stenographer, for issuance of order and demanded Rs 1 lakh as bribe from me… I don’t want to give bribe to madam in lieu of my government work done by her and I want to get the said corrupt officer caught red-handed…,” he alleged, among other things.
Justice Chitkara asserted the petitioner’s counsel was praying for bail by imposing “any stringent condition”. He contended that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family
Justice Chitkara asserted an Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the petitioner’s anticipatory bail, considered all aspects of the matter and reasoned that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was required to recover the mobile phones used in the crime.
“A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached prima facie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so. In the background of the allegations, and the light of the judicial precedents, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner fails to make a case for anticipatory bail,” Justice Chitkara added.
