High Court has refused to grant bail to a politician and entrepreneur-industrialist, Nagraj citing the investigation of the case has reached a crucial stage and directed the IO to conclude the investigation as early as possible. The accused claiming to be a politician being member of BJP and industrialist after having suffered the dismissal of the bail application on 12.06.2024, passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Anantnag, approached the High Court for grant of bail by submitting that he is an industrialist, besides being a politician and has been meeting with the various political leaders/dignitaries of the country. It is stated that the complainant has got an FIR bearing No. 77/2024 registered against the petitioner-accused on 26.04.2024 as he had paid Rs. 12 lakh to him to discuss some property related matter with him in Delhi and the complainant allegedly entered into some agreement with the petitioner in respect of the property situated in New Delhi. The petitioner-accused claims to have been arrested on 09.05.2024 from his Delhi residence and while he was in custody of the Police, the complainant, while using his influence with the aid and assistance of the Police authorities, tortured him and by coercion managed to get the substantial amount from him. It is also contended that the complainant, who is a high-ranking Army Officer and the FIR was registered against the petitioner, only under Section 420 IPC and the offences under Sections 467, 468 471 and 419 IPC were not at all made out from the contents of the FIR but still the official respondent in its response before the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class submitted that the petitioner has committed offences under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 and 419 IPC just to ensure that the petitioner continues to languish in jail. Justice Rajnesh Oswal while declining to grant bail to the petitioner-accused said, the investigation of the case has reached at a crucial stage, as such court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail at this stage. Justice Oswal said that this court would not like to comment upon the merits of the claims as well as counter claims of the contesting parties but deems it proper to remind the Investigating Officer that the investigating agency is not supposed to act as a recovery agent of the complainant and the duty of the Investigating Officer is only to investigate the allegations levelled against the accused and affect seizures of the case property in accordance with law. The Court as such directed the SSP concerned to supervise and monitor the investigation himself to ensure fair investigation and with the further direction to the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible. “The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the concerned court afresh for grant of bail, after the chargesheet is filed”, Court added.
