YEARS |
Updated: 30 Jun 2026 01:05 IS
New Delhi (India), June 30 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice on the plea of Navdeep Khatri, Junior Engineer (JE) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), seeking anticipatory bail in an alleged corruption case. His anticipatory bail application was rejected by the trial court last week.
On May 4, the CBI filed an FIR for allegedly harassing a builder in the GB Road area to extract a bribe of Rs 2 lakh for allowing construction on the site.
Justice Mini Pushkarna issued a notice to the CBI and sought a status report on the case. The court sent the case to the relevant panel for consideration on July 3.
Senior advocate N Hariharan along with advocates Bharat Gupta, Sujeet Beniwal, Tushar Rometra and Siddharth Yadav appeared for Siddharth Yadav.
It was stated that the applicant was directed by the MCD to immediately join the investigation in the present case at the earliest.
It was also reported that Khatri suspected that the CBI would arrest him as several police officials were inquiring about his whereabouts in his area. It is submitted that the FIR did not identify the specific role of the complainant and he did not take an active part in the crime. He does not play any role in the entire range of allegations contained in the present FIR and charge sheet.
The complainant has stated that he is a contractor and is constructing a property at Annar Wali Gali, Katra Ghafoor Baksh, Mohalla Nihariyan, GB Road, Delhi and during the construction of the said project, one person namely Lokesh approached him and allegedly demanded a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, if the amount is not paid, he will bring JE Navdeep Khatri to the place and demolish it.
After registering an FIR, the CBI laid a trap and arrested accused Lokesh and another co-accused, Lovesh, was caught on the spot with the tainted money. Following this, a raid was also carried out on Navdeep Khatri’s premises.
The petitioner contends that the petitioner deliberately concealed material facts from the investigating agency. The petitioner failed to disclose the current stay order, the Notice to Show issued by the petitioner, and the ongoing civil proceedings. Official records clearly show that the construction was unauthorized. (ANI)