Bail denied to Naib Tehsildar, Patwari in corruption case

Excelsior Correspondent

JAMMU, July 8: Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu Ritesh Dubey has rejected the bail application of Naib Tehsildar Ashok Kumar and pre-arrest bail application of Ravinder Kumar, the then Patwari Akhnoor (now Girdawar) in corruption case.
According to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), one Mukesh Gupta lodged a complaint that his wife had applied for issuance of Fard in respect of land measuring one kanal and 19 marlas before Patwari Ravinder Kumar.
Thereafter, the Patwari and Naib Tehsildar approached the complainant through their tout Raman Gupta and asked for a bribe of Rs 30 lakh for the issuance of Fard. Both of them also contacted the complainant personally and the amount was settled at Rs 15 lakh.
Both Patwari and Naib Tehsildar were later on transferred out of that place. But the amount of Rs 15 lakh was still being demanded by Naib Tehsildar Ashok Kumar. Fard was prepared as the complainant received a soft copy through Whatsapp from Chiku Gupta, intending buyer, which was sent to him by tout Raman Gupta.
Original fard was stated to have been retained by Naib Tehsildar Ashok Kumar which was not being provided to the complainant as the Naib Tehsildar was demanding a bribe of Rs 15 lakh. Ashok Kumar told the complainant to pay the bribe amount in parts, but he would provide the Fard only after receiving the full amount.
On the verification by ACB, the allegations of demand of bribe was found correct and FIR 6/2022 was registered and Ashok Kumar was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs 1.5 lakh.
After APP Irshad Ahmed for the ACB, the court while rejecting the bail applications, observed, “in the present case, the investigation is still incomplete, and the accusations especially in view of the alleged conduct of accused whereby such a huge amount was demanded for issuance of a simple fard, also are serious”.
“Another point which is noteworthy is that the amount of graft could be taken into consideration in the facts of each particular case”, the court added.