-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
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