Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

P&H HC Denies Anticipatory Bail to Government Official in Bribery Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail filed by Vijay Singh Dahiya, a government official, in a case related to allegations of bribery. The decision was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill.

The case originated from an FIR lodged by Rinku Manchanda, who accused Dahiya of demanding a bribe for the clearance of pending bills. According to the complainant, Dahiya's acquaintance, Poonam Chopra, acted as a mediator and facilitated the bribe payment. The co-accused, Chopra, was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe, further substantiating the prosecution's case.

The court considered the evidence presented, including WhatsApp messages and CCTV footage, which indicated Dahiya's involvement in the bribery scheme. It noted the close acquaintance between Dahiya and Chopra, as well as the petitioner's approval of the complainant's bills in a short span of time. The court found these factors, along with the complainant's recording of conversations and statements from witnesses, as sufficient grounds to establish the petitioner's complicity.

Rejecting Dahiya's claim of false implication, the court held that no special circumstances existed to grant anticipatory bail. It emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation to uncover finer details of the modus operandi and other similar instances involving Dahiya. The court expressed concerns over the petitioner's potential influence on witnesses and deemed his release after initial questioning as a prudent step by the investigating agency to collect additional evidence.

The decision highlights the court's commitment to combating corruption and ensuring accountability among public officials. The dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition serves as a stern message that individuals accused of bribery will face rigorous legal scrutiny.

Date of Decision: 2nd June 2023

Vijay Singh Dahiya  vs State of Haryana (ACB)       

Latest Legal News