Criminal Misc. No. M-21040 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-21040 of 2009 Date of decision: 7.8.2009 Om Parkash Dahiya .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the petition is for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 26 dated 19.5.2009, registered under Sections 7/13/49/88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, at Police Station, State Vigilance Bureau, Hissar. The petitioner is an accused in a corruption case, where he was caught by the raiding party after he had been delivered power coated currency notes. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in the present case has been falsely implicated for the reason that earlier the petitioner had got the bank guarantee submitted by the complainant forfeited on account of non-fulfilment of certain conditions as directed by the competent authority. The petitioner was not the competent authority to grant `No Objection Certificate'. He submitted that there was some discrepancies in the amount handed over to the petitioner and the notes recovered from his possession. The case has been planted on him only to tarnish his image and demoralise the officers from discharging their duties diligently and honestly. He further submitted that challan has already been presented in the court. No useful purpose will be served by keeping him in jail any more. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. After the complaint was made to the Vigilance Department, power coated currency notes were handed over to them, which were given by them to Mahender Nagpal, Sanjeev Kumar Junior Engineer and the present petitioner. The same were recovered from their possession. Then their hands were got washed and when chemical was poured in that water, it turned red. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there were some Criminal Misc. No. M-21040 of 2009 [2] discrepancies in the amount handed over by the complainant and the notes recovered from the possession of the petitioner has no legs to stand at this stage, as the fact remains that power coated currency notes were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and other accused. As has been noticed in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, another sum of Rs. 22,500/- was found lying in cash from the drawer of the petitioner, which he could not explain at that time. Even from the possession of other accused also, Rs. 14,500/- and Rs. 77,500/- were recovered in cash, which could not be explained. Considering the seriousness of allegations against the petitioner, where the money allegedly demanded by him as bribe was recovered from him, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 7.8.2009 mk