In a major setback to the Haryana Civil Services (HCS) officer, Meenakshi Dahiya, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed her petition for anticipatory bail in a corruption case. Declining bail to the woman officer, the HC observed that there is prima facie evidence connecting Dahiya with the recovery of Rs 1,00,000 of bribe money from her cook, Satinder, who was arrested red-handed on May 29.
“The police recovered the bribe money from him. The calls and transcripts indicate the petitioner’s involvement, which is corroborated by the complainant’s complaint. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached prima facie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so,” the HC has held while refusing relief to Dahiya.
In its order released on Friday, the HC also recorded that the lower court, while dismissing Dahiya’s anticipatory bail, has also considered all aspects of the matter and reasoned that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is required to recover the mobile phones used in the crime.
Justice Anoop Chitkara has passed these orders while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea filed by Meenakshi Dahiya, a 2013 batch state civil services officer. She was booked on May 29 by the anti-corruption bureau (ACB). At that time, she was posted as joint secretary, Fisheries Department Haryana. ACB had arrested one stenographer, Joginder Singh, and her cook, Satinder Singh, while accepting Rs 1,00,000 as a bribe from MDC Panchkula. One Scooty, which was registered in the name of the woman officer, was also seized by the ACB. She had allegedly demanded a Rs 1,00,000 bribe from a district-level officer of the department in lieu of removing a charge sheet order against him. He had then approached the ACB, giving a complaint against the officer.
While seeking bail before the HC, her counsel had submitted that on August 1, she had joined the investigation and given her SIM card and handwriting samples to the investigating agency. Opposing her bail, the state had alleged that she is a senior officer and thus may tamper with the evidence and intimidate the complainant as well as co-accused, employees, and witnesses. Her counsel had also prayed for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contended that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
However, after hearing all the parties, Justice Chitkara observed that in the background of the allegations and in light of the judicial precedents in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner has failed to make a case for anticipatory bail.
