cities

Delhi: Ex-cop accused of taking bribe for not appearing before court denied bail

The court noted that the accused was a Delhi Police official who “did not appear before the court despite service of notice for influencing the bail order and also was found in possession of cash amounting to Rs 1,12,00,000 without any just explanation”.

A Delhi court has rejected the bail application of a former Sub Inspector of Delhi Police who is accused of demanding a bribe for not appearing at court hearings to influence a bail order.

Special Judge Shailender Malik, while rejecting the bail plea of SI Bhograj Singh, who was posted at Maidan Garhi police station, stated: “Any accused who while committing corrupt practices if ventures to defeat the judicial process by one way or the other, cannot be dealt with lightly. Rather it is a serious case, and is not a simple case of trap and recovery of bribe money.”

The court noted that the accused was a Delhi Police official who “did not appear before the court despite service of notice for influencing the bail order and also was found in possession of cash amounting to Rs 1,12,00,000 without any just explanation”.

According to the prosecution, the complainant alleged that SI Bhojraj was demanding Rs 5,00,000 from him and his friend Anuj to favour them in the investigation and not to oppose their bail application by not attending the court proceedings.

In fact, the complainant said that he was scared that the policeman was tracking his movements and that he called CBI officers at a location of his choosing and did not go to the CBI office to disclose the bribery demand.

The CBI team had laid a trap near a mall at Saket where SI Bhograj was allegedly arrested after he took the bribe money from the complainant. The day after his arrest, the CBI team raided his house and found over Rs 1 crore.

Bhograj’s lawyer argued that the complainant, who was facing the criminal case, was booked under bailable sections and therefore there was “no cause for the accused to favour the complainant or to oppose their bail”.

The court had gone through the order sheets in which the complainant had applied for anticipatory bail and found that the “IO did not appear before the court”. The court also perused the written transcript of recorded conversation between the complainant and the accused, and noted that the SI had stated to the complainant that he “intentionally did not appear before the court as he wanted to ensure bail order to be granted to him”.

Source: Read Full Article