CBI court denies bail to advocate demanding Rs 30-lakh bribe for favourable divorce verdict

Arguing through his counsel Sartej Singh Narula, Salwan quoted his fees to contest the divorce case in the courts at Bathinda, and claimed that he had only asked for his fees to handle the entire case and the story of demand of bribe has been “completely manipulated”.

CBI Public Prosecutor, Narender Singh, however argued that this is not a case of ordinary corruption involving an insignificant amount, rather it is a “disturbing instance where an advocate, who is an officer of court, has demanded a sum of Rs 30 lakh by explicitly citing his personal influence over judicial officers and by promising favourable orders through corrupt and illegal means”.

The prosecutor further contended that Salwan had approached the woman (petitioner in the divorce case) with a demand of Rs 30 lakh as bribe, claiming influence with a judicial officer and promising favourable order. He said that the claim that the advocate was merely quoting his professional fee, is “totally wrong and misleading” as no power of attorney or document has been produced to show that he was formally engaged by the woman in her divorce case pending at Bathinda courts.

The CBI prosecutor also argued that Salwan repeatedly referred to the names of three different judicial officers, demonstrating that he was “unscrupulously invoking and misusing the names of judicial officers for the purpose of demanding bribes, undue advantage irrespective of the technical jurisdiction”.

The Court of Alka Malik, Additional District and Sessions Judge on hearing the matter held that the contentions raised on behalf of applicant-accused qua his false implication in the crime or that he had only asked for his fee, is the moot point that needs adjudication in trial. The manner in which the crime is committed and the material collected during investigation establish complicity of the applicant in the crime, the court observed while declining the plea for bail.