The CBI traps have often been found stage-managed by the ‘complainant’ itself. Officers thus end up facing charges in court, only to be acquitted later. In other cases, either the witnesses turn hostile or the prosecution fails to prove the case.

Stage-managed traps:
The CBI has been misled into laying a trap. This is not a case where a trap is laid to nab the criminal, but a case where the complainant was making efforts right from the beginning to egg the accused — states a recent judgment of the CBI court wherein a police officer, caught ‘red-handed while taking a bribe by the CBI’, was acquitted.

In 2008, two such cases made history at the CBI court:

Inspector Bishi Ram case: The arrest of the Manimajra SHO in May 2007 made headlines. The inspector had been awarded a commendation certificate only three months before his arrest for returning Rs 5 lakh he had found in an unclaimed bag to its lawful owner. Later, the CBI arrested the inspector on graft charges, claiming he had taken a bribe of Rs 5,000. It was later found that the complainant, one Malkeet Singh, had a criminal background. On further interrogation, it was revealed that the SHO had arrested Malkeet in a gambling case and that he wanted to settle scores. The court found that the CBI team was kept in the dark about the conversation between the accused, complainant and the shadow witness, which lasted for over for five minutes. The CBI special court of Jagdeep Jain then acquitted the inspector, terming the episode a stage-managed trap to nail Bishi Ram. Later, it was found that the inspector had never demanded a bribe from the ‘complainant’.

Constable Satish Kamar case: The constable was arrested by the CBI ‘red-handed while taking a bribe of Rs 1,000 in Sector 22’. The complainant, Anuj Sharma, had told the CBI that Kumar was forcing him to pay the amount in lieu of an arrest warrant. The CBI court found a subtle twist in the deposition of the complainant. From the call details, it was revealed that it was the complainant himself who was repeatedly calling Kumar. The court also found that the constable had not made any such demand but a suggestion — is there any way out — was made by the complainant. While the prosecution said the bribe was accepted outside a jewellery shop, the site plan prepared by them had no mention of the shop. They made varied statement in this regard. The court ruled — “This was not a case of laying a trap, in the usual way, for a man who was demanding a bribe but of deliberately tempting a man to his own undoing”. As per Section 1 of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in which the demand was necessary, the court found that there was no demand. The court termed the statement of the complainant as a bundle of lies. The constable was acquitted of all charges on November 14, 2008, by the CBI court.