Pre-arrest bail plea of Patwari rejected in corruption case

0
39

STATE TIMES NEWS

JAMMU: Additional Sessions Judge Anti-Corruption Jammu, Ritesh Kumar Dubey rejected pre-arrest bail application of Arish Parvez, Patwari Halqa Gangyal who was absconding from May 10, 2022 in a trap case.
According to report, a complainant namely Harmeet Singh lodged a complaint with ACB Police Station Central Jammu that his brother-in-law Dewan Singh applied for issuance of Fard Intikhab on April 12, 2022, for sale of 6.6 Marlas land in Khasra No.150-min situated at Dashmesh Nagar, Gangyal but Patwari Halqa Gangyal, namely Arish Parvez did not provide same despite fulfilling all formalities. The complainant added that he was following the case as his brother-in-law resides at Akhnoor. He further said that he visited Halqa Patwari concerned a number of times, and requested him to issue Fard Intikhab, but instead of issuing Fard, the Revenue officers demanded Rs 35,000 from him. Further, his tout Jatin also called him number of times to pay bribe money, if he wants Fard. Finally, the amount was negotiated at Rs.15,000 as advance payment for which he had been called by Jatin. A pre-trap verification was conducted by Inspector Sangeeta Slathia who submitted report with the recommendation for registration of a case under sections 7 of PC Act 1988 and 120-B of RPC. Accordingly, FIR No.05/2020 was registered at Police Station ACB Central, J&K Jammu on May 10, 2022, against Arish Parvez, Patwari Halqa Gangyal Jammu and his tout Jatin. Accordingly, a trap team led by DySP Sagar Singh as TLO/IO, was constituted and on May 10, 2022, the team laid a successful trap after completing pre-trap formalities and caught accused Jatin, tout of Patwari Arish Parvez, red-handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs 15,000 whereas Patwari Arish Parvez managed to flee.
The Court, after hearing both the sides, observed that in present case, the circumstances are serious and grave. The applicant is the person who was responsible for preparation of Fard, which was seized on the spot, thereby making in clear that he is the person, who was directly responsible to do work for which bribe was allegedly paid. With these observations, the Court observed that there is no merit in this application and dismissed the plea.