The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday granted bail to AAP MLA Amit Rattan in a corruption case filed in February 2023 at Bathinda under Sections 7, 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC, after considering the fact that “nothing has been recovered” from him.
Rattan was arrested in March after Rashim Garg, the MLA’s alleged private PA, was apprehended in a Vigilance Bureau trap. The trap was set in response to a complaint from the spouse of a sarpanch, who claimed that Garg and the MLA were both demanding a bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs in connection with the clearance of payment of certain official works.
The bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh stated, “No recovery has been affected from the petitioner. The existence of the vehicle outside the circuit house and the recovery affected after Rashim Garg’s hands were washed in the room itself would be arguable. In contrast to the complainant’s promise of Rs.2 lakhs, the recovery has been made in the amount of Rs.4 lakhs from Rashim Garg, who is not the petitioner’s official P.A.”
According to the complaint filed by the spouse of a Sarpanch of a village in Bhatinda, the accused MLA demanded a bribe of Rs.5 lakhs in lieu for releasing a government grant of Rs.25 lakhs. The complainant claimed that Garg took Rs.2.5 lakhs from him in exchange for appointing S.C Namberdar Gurdas Singh as village chief.
According to the prosecution, a trap was set when Garg called the complainant to the circuit house for the bribe. Garg was detained outside the circuit house while driving the vehicle allegedly loaded with bribe money. The DSP then led the raiding party into the circuit house, where the MLA and his personal PA Ranbir Singh were sitting. When asked by the DSP if Garg was his private P.A., the MLA answered that while he knew Garg personally, he is not his personal assistant, according to the prosecution case.
The court observed that the statement of SI Varun Yadav under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as reproduced in the earlier section of the judgement, appeared to be “totally misplaced” in relation to the prosecution’s story of deputing him as a guard to keep an eye on the vehicle in question.
It further stated that Constable Gurmeet Singh’s statement would be “debatable” because of the phrases he used to address himself and the raiding party’s incharge.
“When the petitioner was very much present in the room itself, taking of amount away in a car by Rashim Garg outside the circuit house, would remain on debatable note as the same was never intended to hand over to the petitioner in the circuit house itself, particularly in view of the complainant’s previous proximity with Rashim Garg as he had already paid Rashim Garg an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs for appointing S.C. Namberdar in the village,” the court said.
The bench noted that there is no allegation that such amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs was also payable to the petitioner, nor has such allegation been made, i.e., if the same was obtained by the petitioner in his role as MLA.
The presence of the vehicle outside the circuit house, as well as the recovery effected after Rashim Garg’s hands were washed in the room itself, “would remain debatable,” according to the court.
The court granted regular bail to the MLA, saying, “I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court or Duty Magistrate.”
