Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Corruption in Healthcare Cannot Be Tolerated: Punjab and Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Bribery Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied the anticipatory bail plea of Naveen, a Clerk implicated in a bribery case under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (PNDT Act). Justice Anoop Chitkara, in his detailed judgment, highlighted the grave implications of the alleged corruption, supported by substantial prima facie evidence, and stressed the broader societal consequences of female foeticide.

Background: Naveen, a Clerk posted with the Nodal Officer in Panipat, Haryana, was accused of demanding a bribe to settle a notice issued under the PNDT Act. The complaint was lodged by Dr. Sanjeev Chhabra, who alleged that Naveen, in collusion with Dr. Pawan Kumar, the Nodal Officer, demanded a bribe through an intermediary, Vishal Malik, to resolve issues arising from an inspection of his imaging and diagnostic center.

Court Observations and Views:

Role of Petitioner in Bribery: Justice Chitkara detailed the active involvement of the petitioner in the bribery scheme. Frequent communications between the petitioner and the complainant underscored Naveen’s complicity. "The transcripts of calls and recovery of bribe money corroborate the allegations," Justice Chitkara observed, emphasizing the petitioner's direct participation in corrupt practices.

Credibility of Evidence: The court highlighted the recovery of tainted money and audio recordings as crucial evidence. "The recovery of money from Vishal Malik's hospital and the detailed transcripts of the recorded conversations significantly strengthen the prosecution's case against the petitioner," the judgment stated. These pieces of evidence were deemed sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner.

Justice Chitkara emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy. Citing precedents, the court reiterated that the nature and gravity of the alleged offense should guide the decision on anticipatory bail. "Corruption, especially in sensitive sectors like healthcare, must be dealt with iron hands," the judgment asserted, referencing the Supreme Court's stance on handling economic offenses.

Justice Chitkara remarked, "The misuse of positions in critical sectors, especially those involving the health and future of society, such as the PNDT Act, reflects a gross betrayal of public trust and cannot be overlooked. The falling female population ratio and the rampant practice of female foeticide are issues of grave concern that demand stringent action."

Societal Implications: The court underscored the broader societal implications of the case, particularly concerning female foeticide. Justice Chitkara highlighted the declining female population ratio in Haryana and the severe impact of such unethical practices on society. "The practice of female foeticide is a reprehensible form of violence against women, denying them their fundamental right to life," the judgment noted.

Decision: The dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition by the Punjab and Haryana High Court reinforces the judiciary's commitment to combating corruption and addressing the serious issue of female foeticide. The judgment not only upholds the principles of justice but also sends a strong message about the critical need to protect and promote gender equality. This decision is expected to have a significant impact on future cases, reinforcing the legal framework for addressing corruption and gender-based crimes.

Date of Decision: 28.05.2024

Naveen vs. State of Haryana

Latest Legal News