Ludhiana, June 8 – A special court has sentenced Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Tarsem Singh to four years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹25,000 after finding him guilty in a 2021 bribery case involving the execution of non-bailable warrants.
The verdict was delivered by Special Judge Amrinder Singh Shergill, who ruled that the circumstances of the case left no room for a lenient sentence. The court held that the ASI had failed in his duty and instead chose to exploit his position for personal gain.
“Given the nature of the offence and the conduct of the convict, there is no justification for a compassionate view,” the court noted in its order.
The case dates back to February 25, 2021, when the Vigilance Bureau arrested ASI Singh, who was posted at Division No. 8 police station in Ludhiana at the time. He was caught red-handed while accepting ₹1,500 as a bribe from Rahul Kumar, a resident of New Kundanpuri.
Kumar had filed a complaint in a cheque bounce case against one Rajat Rana. Following this, the court issued non-bailable warrants against Rana and instructed police to serve them. However, according to Kumar, ASI Singh delayed acting on the court order and instead demanded a bribe of ₹2,000 to serve the warrants. The amount was eventually negotiated down to ₹1,500.
Rather than yield to the demand, Kumar approached the Vigilance Bureau, which set up a trap. The ASI was arrested at the scene while accepting the bribe and later booked under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
During the trial, Tarsem Singh pleaded for leniency, citing that he was the sole breadwinner in a family of five, including his wife and three children. The prosecution, however, opposed the appeal strongly.
“The convict didn’t hesitate to solicit money in return for executing a court’s lawful order,” the prosecution argued. “Public servants must uphold integrity, not trade basic duties for personal gain.”
The court concurred with the prosecution, ruling that the convict’s actions warranted strict punishment. The sentencing, legal experts noted, sends a clear message about accountability in public service.
The case underscores the state’s zero-tolerance approach towards corruption in law enforcement, especially when it interferes with the judicial process.
