While considering the interim bail application of the three MLAs, a bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Ananya Bandopadhyay noted that in the FIR, the complainant did not mention that the three MLAs were arrested a day earlier. According to the court, this raised a doubt over the credibility of the complaint.
“On the other hand, de-facto complainant (Jaimangal) appears to give an euphemistic description of events by claiming that the petitioners are ‘stationed at Kolkata with a token amount’. Unwillingness of the de-facto complainant to come out with the real state of affairs i.e. petitioners had already been arrested even prior to his lodging complaint, raises doubt with regard to the credibility of the accusation,” the bench observed.
The court further observed that even though the applicants had been in custody for two weeks, the complainant had produced no evidence to support his claim that he was approached by them with a bribe to help topple the Jharkhand Government.
“It is nobody’s case that the parties were in close proximity with one another. No electronic message between the parties has been retrieved. Nor CDRs of the petitioners collected during investigation show telephonic communication between them and the de-facto complainant around the relevant time. This raises serious doubt with regard to the insinuation that offer of bribe had been made to the de-facto complainant by the petitioners immediately prior to their apprehension,” it said.
Source: Barandbench
