Corruption At Grassroots Level Within Govt Offices Silently Devouring Pillars Of Democracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Observing that "corruption at the grassroots level within government offices is akin to termites silently devouring the pillars of democracy", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected the second pre-arrest bail plea of a Patwari who was accused of demanding bribe to process mutation. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "It gnaws away at the trust of our citizens in the very institutions which are meant to serve them. To preserve the sanctity of justice, this weed of corruption must be uprooted, for it is only in the sunlight of transparency and integrity that the tree of justice can bear fruit." Adding that the Court's duty is not just to punish the corrupt but to sow the seeds of deterrence, the bench said that it should be ensured that "the shadows of corruption does not darken the halls of governance." These observation came in response to the second anticipatory bail plea of one Rashpal Singh who was booked under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 at Amritsar Police Station.It was alleged that Singh who was the Halqa Patwari demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000 from a "poor man" seeking mutation of six karnals land on account of the death of his mother. The complainant had also stated to record the conversations where he was making demands of the bribe and complainant was requesting to reduce the amount. On the issue of maintainability of the second pre-arrest application, the Court noted that the, "petitioner is unable to spell out difference of even one additional tact or circumstance which was not canvassed earlier."Reliance was also placed upon Calcutta High Court's full bench decision in in Maya Rani Guin and etc. vs. State of West Bengal, (2003) wherein it was categorically held that, "entertaining second application for anticipatory bail would amount to review or reconsideration of the earlier order passed by a Bench having coordinate jurisdiction as the accusation remains unchanged. The accusation being the sine qua non which remains the same would not in an event indicate the revival of reasons to believe or apprehension of arrest which was already considered by the Court in the earlier application for anticipatory bail."The Court opined that in view of the settled law, "the second application for the same relief under Section 438 Cr. P.C. cannot be entertained by making new arguments or twists by introducing new circumstances, development or material. Thus, the second application without any change in the fact situation is held to be not maintainable."On merits of the case, the Court noted that complainant had recorded the conversation between him and the petitioner at different times when demands of bribe were made and also when the complainant was requesting him to reduce the bribe amount.Considering that the submissions made by the parties and material available on record, the Court said that, "The conspicuous facts and circumstances of the case pricks the conscience of this Court."In the light of the above the Court opined that the bail plea is not maintainable and the the is petition is bereft of "any merit and without any substance,"In the light of the above, the petition was dismissed.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 242Case Title: Rashpal Singh v. State of PunjabClick here to read/download the order.

Corruption At Grassroots Level Within Govt Offices Silently Devouring Pillars Of Democracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags