Observing that extortion of illegal gratification by a law enforcement officer severely erodes public confidence in the administration of justice and cannot be viewed leniently, a Panchkula court has dismissed the second regular bail plea of a Haryana Police sub-inspector accused of demanding a ₹ 5,000 bribe to release an impounded vehicle.
The court also expressed apprehension that his release could lead to witness intimidation and evidence tampering, considering his departmental rank, local influence and criminal antecedents. The complainant reportedly recorded the demand and approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Panchkula. The notes matched the pre-trap inventory, while his hand-wash sample turned light pink.
Additional sessions judge Bikramjit Arora, while dismissing the bail application of Desh Raj on November 2, observed that a strong prima facie case of corruption had been made out against the serving police officer. The complainant’s vehicle was impounded at Police Post Sector 21 following a personal dispute on July 26, according to the prosecution. Despite a written compromise between the parties the next day, Desh Raj allegedly demanded ₹ 5,000 to release the vehicle without issuing a heavy traffic challan. During a trap operation laid on July 30, the accused allegedly dropped the tainted currency notes, concealed inside his police uniform cap, onto the floor.
24 of November 27, 2023), in which the accused is facing trial over an alleged bribe demand for submitting a favourable investigation report. The accused has been in judicial custody since July 30. The court noted that the prosecution’s case was supported by digital audio recordings, forensic reports and call detail records, along with tower location analysis confirming the presence of both parties at the police post during the trap. The court also took note of another corruption case (FIR No. His voice sample reportedly matched during forensic examination. Rejecting the defence plea that the chargesheet had been filed and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the court held that the seriousness of the allegations and the circumstances did not warrant bail.
