Why was a Delhi Police ASI arrested for a Rs 2.4 lakh bribe?
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
- CBI arrests Delhi Police ASI for taking a bribe.
- Bribe amount was initially set at Rs 15 lakh.
- The ASI was caught red-handed during an undercover operation.
- Separate case against Arvind R. Kale for disproportionate assets.
- Corruption in law enforcement is under scrutiny.
New Delhi, Nov 10 (NationPress) The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has apprehended an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) of the Delhi Police for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 2.4 lakh from a litigant involved in a property dispute at Karkardooma Court in east Delhi, as reported by an official on Monday.
ASI Patil Kumar was assigned to the Police Station Jyoti Nagar, according to the official statement.
The CBI initiated the case against the officer on Sunday following a formal complaint lodged by the property owner.
Initially, the ASI insisted on a bribe of Rs 15 lakh to provide a favorable verification report in court regarding the property in Meet Nagar.
The accused threatened the complainant with an adverse report should the bribe not be paid.
After negotiations, the ASI agreed to lower the bribe amount, leading the CBI to set up a trap on Sunday, where they caught Patil Kumar red-handed while demanding and receiving Rs 2.40 lakh from the complainant as partial payment.
In a separate investigation, the CBI has also filed a case against Arvind R. Kale, the former Project Director-cum-General Manager of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), for possessing disproportionate assets.
The FIR against Kale was lodged on October 30, citing charges of a public servant enriching himself through illicit means during his tenure.
The CBI's investigation into Kale's financial activities from April 1, 2022, to March 3, 2024, revealed substantial discrepancies in his assets, indicating a total of Rs 1.56 crore in disproportionate wealth.
According to Deputy Superintendent of Police Harish Goel, the investigation showed that Arvind R. Kale had illicitly enriched himself, with assets exceeding his known sources of income, thus violating sections of the PC Act, 1988 (amended in 2018).