STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Special Judge Anticorruption Baramulla Amarjeet Singh Langeh rejected the bail application of one Altaf Hussain Khan, Naib Tehsildar Uri who was caught red-handed by the ACB while accepting Rs 50000 as bribe.
According to the ACB it was alleged by complainant that he had purchased a piece of land measuring 10 marlas falling under survey 307 at Rajarwani, Uri from one Mohd Sadeeq R/o Bandi Brahmana Uri and also constructed a house on it ,the plot was purchased for an amount of Rs 5 lacs but seller fail to provide him revenue documents of said land in time as per sale agreement entered between parties due to which complainant couldn’t get mutation of said land done in his favor therefore he approached Tehsildar Uri with application . Tehsildar Uri directed Patwari to visit spot and submit the report in matter, when complainant approached Patwari Pardeep Kumar he took complainant to Naib Tehsildar Uri namely, Altaf Hussain Khan where Naib Tehsildar demanded bribe of Rs 10 lac from complainant in presence of patwari which was later on negotiated by Sarpanch of the area and finally, it was decided that complainant will pay first installment of fifty thousand to Naib tehsildar uri before report is submitted. Special Judge Anticorruption Baramulla Amarjeet Singh Langeh observed that the investigation conducted thus far vividly demonstrates albeit prima facie that in the capacity of Naib Tehsildar – Uri, petitioner demanded bribe from complainant in the case and accepted the same. Petitioner, as per evidence collected up till now in a trap case – demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000 as corruption for preparing some revenue extracts and report and he accepted the same and the tainted money, during trap proceedings, was also recovered from petitioner. This aspect has been elaborately delineated by investigating agency in its report. Initially, petitioner is said to have demanded an amount of Rs. 10 lakh as bribe for doing aforesaid act of preparing revenue extracts and report. Ultimately, after indulgence of Sarpanch as mentioned in police report and subsequent negotiation, the first installment was settled as Rs. 50,000. Tainted money so recovered – is in Indian currency with 100 notes of 500 denominations each. Cases involving allegation of corruption, therefore, have to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail, lest public faith in the majesty of law shall not only be eroded, but robust system devised to curb and deter corruption by public servants – be also questioned.
The nature of accusation, character of evidence collected thus far, severity of punishment which conviction will entail, circumstances peculiar to petitioner and larger interest of public – are the circumstances which are poignantly poised against petitioner in the case in hand. During the course of hearing, investigating officer also informed that petitioner is also involved in another corruption case bearing FIR No. 08/2024 for offences under Sections 5(1)(d) r/w Section 5(2) of J&K P. C. Act Smt. 2006. At this stage, bail if granted to petitioner would not only thwart ongoing investigation, but would only confirm cynical belief harboured by public that system is beyond repair and redemption, if likes of petitioner are granted bail in a trap case during ongoing investigation. For all what is said herein-above, this application has no merit at this stage and same is, therefore, dismissed.
