|
The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice on a plea of Navdeep Khatri, a Junior Engineer (JE) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), seeking anticipatory bail in an alleged corruption case. His anticipatory bail plea was dismissed by the trial court last week.
An FIR was lodged on May 4 by the CBI in the allegations of harassing a builder in the GB Road area in a bid to grab a bribe of Rs 2 Lakh for allowing construction in a property. Justice Mini Pushkarna issued notice to the CBI and sought a status report. The bench has listed the matter before the concerned bench for hearing on July 3. Senior advocate N Hariharan alongwith Advocates Bharat Gupta, Sujeet Beniwal, Tushar Rohmetra and Siddharth Yadav, appeared for Siddharth Yadav. It was submitted that the petitioner has received an intimation from the MCD to immediately join the investigation in the present case at the earliest. It was also submitted that Khatri has an apprehension of arrest by the CBI as multiple police officials have been inquiring about his whereabouts in his neighbourhood. It is contended that no specific role of the petitioner has been defined in the FIR, with no active involvement in the crime. He has no role whatsoever in the entire gamut of the allegations as narrated in the present FIR and the charge sheet. The complainant stated that he is a contractor and is building property in Annar Wali Gali, Katra Gafoor Baksh, Mohalla Nihariyan, G.B. Road, Delhi, wherein during the construction of the said project one person namely Lokesh approached him and allegedly demanded an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, if amount is not paid, he would bring the J.E. Navdeep Khatri to the spot and get the same demolished. After registration of the FIR, the CBI laid a trap and arrested accused Lokesh and another co-accused, Lovesh, was apprehended on the spot with the tainted money. Thereafter, a raid was also conducted at the premises of Navdeep Khatri. It is stated by the petitioner that the complainant has deliberately suppressed material facts from the Investigating Agency. The complainant failed to disclose the subsisting stay order, the Show Cause Notice issued by the Petitioner, and the pending civil proceedings. The official records clearly reveal that the construction is unauthorised. (ANI)
|
