The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Mohit Bedi v. State of Punjab observed and has rejected the anticipatory bail plea moved by the constable who was accused of demanding Rs. 10 lacs to fizzle down the investigation in a case which involves 280 grams of heroin i.e., commercial quantity recovered from an accused in NDPS Act.
The bench headed by Justice Anoop Chitkara in the case observed and has stated that it is apparent that the petitioner was aware that Gopal Singh, i.e. the accused in NDPS had made illegal money by dealing with the drugs and wanted to have a piece of such a big cake. Thus, being the member of the police party, it can be disastrous if such a mole betrays their own team due to which some would be working to carb this menace of drugs.
In the present case, the court was hearing the anticipatory bail plea moved by Punjab Police constable, Mohit Bedi. The court booked him under section 7, section 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding bribe for cease investigating the NDPS case against one Gopal Singh.
In the said case, the complaint was made before the court by the wife of Gopal, wherein it is stated that the constable had taken her husband into custody, raided her house and took away 4 wrist watches, scooty, car key, mobile phones and some cash.
Further, the court alleged that the money demanded from the complainant, if she want to save her husband. In order to catch him red-handed, she made false promise and handed him the cash. Thereafter he was caught by the raiding party, submitted the State in reply.
The counsel appearing for the State submitted before the court that they need custodial interrogation of the petitioner not to unearth the involvement of police officials and other persons in this case but also that in how much other cases, petitioner and his accomplices have involved in this kind of tactics.
The court in the case noted that the complainant whose husband was arrested in the NDPS case was being cheated by the petitioner and his accomplices by involving in thugee and they not only took away her immovable property but also want to extract as much money as possible.
The bench of Justice Chitkara in the case observed and has opined that the evidence which is collected against the petitioner is prime facie sufficient and serious and the impact of the crime on the society as well as on police force is massive.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the pre-arrest bail plea.
The counsel, , Advocate Anurag Chopra appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Ravinder Singh, AAG, Punjab.