BRIBE FOR BAIL

FACTS OF THE CASE-: Law intern was accused of accepting bribe on behalf of Assistant Sub Inspector who was posted at Crime Branch. The case of the complainant was that when she visited to inquire about the status of bail application of her brother, ASI Rakesh demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,00,000 from her to facilitate bail for her brother. Later, the ASI agreed to the amount of Rs. 70,000. With the help of trap team, the law intern was caught red handed. He revealed that he accepted the money to hand over the same to ASI wherein he himself had no share. Before the Court, the law intern’s contention was that the amount of Rs. 70,000 was meant for legal fees of Advocate for bail application. He was only a law intern having no license to practice and therefore was not capable to file bail application and the bail application was already pending as moved on behalf of brother of complainant and another counsel has been representing him, the court noted.

Sections applicable– Section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code & Section 7 & 13(1)D of Prevention Of Corruption Act.

CASE CONCLUSION– In view of aforesaid case, I conclude that accused persons Rakesh Kumar and Anshul  acted in complicity and conspiracy whereby demand of illegal gratification of Rs.70,000/- was raised and accepted by misusing his official position by public servant Rakesh Kumar through Anshul. The offences  are proved as against both the accused persons. Prosecution has been able to successfully prove the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

RELATED JUDGEMENTS i). Himanshu @ Chintu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi; 23. (2011) 2 SCC 36

ii). T. Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; Criminal Appeal no. 909/1997, Supreme Court dated 12.01.2014.

iii). N. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Appeal no.719/1995, Supreme Court dated 12.12.2000

iv). State of U.P Vs. Zakaullah, Supreme Court dated 12.12.1997.

v). C. K. Damodaran Nair Vs. Govt. of India, Supreme Court dated 08.01.1997.

vi.) B. Jayraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; (2014) 13 SCC 55.

vii.) State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Devender Singh; 2013 (4) JCC 2635.

viii.) Suraj Mal Vs. The State (Delhi Administration); (1979) 4 SCC 725.

Submitted by:-

Harshit Gupta- Intern