CBI court dismisses discharge plea of CHB official held for demanding bribe

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Chandigarh, September 23

Chandigarh CBI court Special Judge Jagjit Singh has dismissed a discharge application filed by Chandigarh Housing Board Senior Assistant Shamsher Singh, who was arrested by the CBI on May 18 last year while allegedly accepting a bribe from a person for issuing a no-objection certificate (NOC).

The accused had filed an application under Section 227 of the CrPC praying that he be discharged in the case.

He claimed that he had been falsely implicated by the CBI in connivance with the complainant.

He insisted that he had never demanded or accepted any bribe. He contended that the allegation levelled by the complainant against him was false.

There was no demand for a bribe in the audio recordings that the prosecution had relied upon, and he was unaware of the bribe money recovered from the drawer of the table he would use, the accused said.

As per the chargesheet, the accused had demanded money from a resident of Mani Majra for issuing an NOC under the Tatkal Scheme.

Narender Singh, the public prosecutor for the CBI, opposed the application of the accused and said that a prima facie case is made against the accused, which is only to be seen at this stage.

The CBI claimed that the demand by the accused was substantiated during the verification on May 17, 2022, and that the accused was caught red-handed on May 18, 2022. The agency also noted that the bribe money was recovered from the drawer of the table used by the accused.

Narender argued that the accused was trying to delay the issuance of a transfer certificate. He prayed that the application filed by the accused be dismissed.

After hearing the arguments, the court noted that the law with regard to the framing of charges is well settled. It has been held that at the time of framing a charge, only a prima facie case is to be looked into, and the entire evidence of the prosecution is not to be seen as to whether it would lead to the conviction of the accused or not, the court added.

The court stated that in the present case, the contention of the defence counsel about no delay on the part of the accused dealing with the file of the complainant would be seen when the witnesses are examined.

All these circumstances would best be seen when the evidence is recorded in the trial, but these circumstances certainly go to show that there is enough oral and documentary evidence, which makes out a prima facie case against the accused, the court further said. It added, “As a result, the case laws on which the counsel for the accused relies upon do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case and are accordingly distinguishable. No merit is found in the application filed by the accused and his application is accordingly dismissed.”