news details |
|
|
| Court reject pre-arrest bail of then ARTO in DA case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Mar 2: Special Judge Anticorruption Kashmir Surinder Singh rejected the pre-arrest bail application of Jamsheed Rasool Chowdhhary then ARTO Budgam who was booked by the ACB in Disproportinate case.
According to the ACB that a verification vide No.83/2021 was conducted wherein the suspect public servant Jamsheed Rasool Chowdhary S/o Ghulam Rasool Chowdhary R/o Hassi Bhat Rainawari Srinagar was appointed in MVD as Motor Vehicle Inspector( Tech) on 27-03-2008 vide Govt. Order no.24-TR of 2008 and was found having acquired 1.5 story residential house at Chinar colony Kulhamma Tangmarg Baramulla (1410) sqft. With underneath land of 2 Kanals 05 Marlas, Land measuring 1.5 kanals at Zakura with residential house built on it as
Benami in the name of his father-in-law, Vehicle Tata Nano JK01AL 9707, registered in the name of his daughter Hafsa Jamsheed, 160 gold coins(Ponds), Creta Car bearing Registration No.JK01AD/0821 registered in the name of Saika Mehraj daughter of his driver Mehraj-ud-din Kuchay. The suspect during check period w.e.f 01-01-2009 up to 31-12-2020 against a saving of Rs.387940 raised assets amounting to Rs.18700000/- and thus has amassed disproportionate assets nearby by 364% over and above his income during the check period and against the said back drop, a case FIR No.19/2023 u/s 5(1) (e) r/w 5(2) J&K PC Act Svt 2006 was registered against the said public servant.
Special Judge Anticorruption Srinagar Surinder Singh while rejecting the pre-arrest bail application, observed that the allegations as referred above against the petitioner are incriminating in nature and demonstrate petitioner's involvement in acquiring huge properties against his known source of income which was unbecoming on his part being a public servant thereby raising disproportionate assets illegally and by adopting corrupt practices. The petitioner was given notice of appearance before the IO as mandated under the provisions of Cr.P.C to furnish explanation as to the details of properties owned and possessed by him and by his family members, the petitioner instead responding the notice appearing before the I.O, approached this court, seeking protection from the court against his apprehended arrest. The anticipatory bail, being an extra ordinary privilege is granted only in exceptional cases, when the court is convinced on the basis of material on record, that a public servant has falsely been implicated and the allegations of illegal gratification/corruption are leveled with an oblique motive or tainted with malafidies. A cursory look to the material collected by investigating agency does not lead to an inference that petitioner has been falsely implicated with the oblique motives instead there is a direct evidence which proves petitioner's culpability in the case. While considering the plea of the petitioner, for grant of anticipatory bail in light of the above facts and circumstances of the case and material available on the file, it cannot be said that the petitioner is an innocent person and is being implicated in the case without their being any material to prove his complicity. In the given scenario the plea of the petitioner that he will be harassed and humiliated under the garb of investigation carried on by the investigating agency in absence of any incriminating material available on the file as to the alleged commission of offence, cannot be entertained. The plea of the petitioner seeking bail on medical grounds also cannot be entertained on the count that petitioner had met with an accident and suffered leg fracture. The medical record/prescription attached with the application cannot be taken as conclusive proof which otherwise nowhere suggests that petitioner was unable to move out of the bed and in fact is a bed ridden patient, as claimed. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner/accused on this count is also not tenable and is accordingly rejected.
For the aforesaid reasons, Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to carve out a prima-facie case to qualify for the concession of bail in anticipation of his arrest. —JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
