AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
Petitioner, a Police Officer, seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 15/2018 of Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Jammu under section 5(1) (d) read
with section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat 2006. The FIR has been registered on 31.05.2018 on the basis of a complaint
lodged by one, Muneer Hussain, after verification by the Vigilance Organization. It has been alleged by the complainant that the petitioner (accused),
while posted as SHO, Police Station, Manjakote, falsely implicated his son, Mohd. Tariq in a case under section 376 RPC. He demanded three lakh
rupees from the complainant as illegal gratification for saving the life of his son. Complainant could arrange and pay the petitioner 2.70 lakh rupees
only but the petitioner ultimately filed the charge-sheet against his son.
It is admitted case of both the sides that in the charge-sheet under section 376 RPC the accused therein, that is, son of the complainant has been
acquitted by the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri by virtue of judgment dated 22.01.2016. It is admitted also that the complaint
leading to the registration of the FIR against the petitioner was filed by the complainant on 07.05.2016 and after verification the FIR came to be
registered on 31.05.2018. It is also a common ground that in the verification report (annexure-C), the Verifying Officer had recommended closure of
the complaint as not proved but in spite of that FIR has been registered.
The judgment dated 22.01.2016 rendered by the trial court would show that the prosecutrix therein had initially made incrementing statement against
the accused in her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. She, however, resiled from the said statement at the trial and exonerated the
accused. In regard to her statement recorded in terms of section 164-A Cr.P.C. she, while admitting her signature on the said statement, in one breath
denied the correctness of the contents thereof and in the same breath stated that the statement was made by her on asking of the Police. The Trial
court seems to have accepted the statement made by the prosecutrix at the trial and, therefore, acquitted the accused therein without, however,
showing any seriousness to the prosecutrix’s U-turn from the statement made under section 164-A Cr.P.C.Â
Having regard to the backdrop in which the complaint leading to the registration of FIR by the VOJ has been filed, this is a fit case where the
petitioner can be held entitled to anticipatory bail as sought by him.
Viewed thus, this application is allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, directing that in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on his
furnishing personal bond with a surety in the amount of Rs. 50,000/ each. The grant of anticipatory bail shall be subject to the condition that petitioner
shall assist the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.
Disposed of.