The main legal point established in the judgment is that the gravity of the allegations, motive for the offense, and social ramifications are crucial factors in deciding bail applications, and the grounds for cancellation of bail must be very cogent and overwhelming.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J. - The State of Punjab has filed these applications under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Criminal Procedure Code) for setting aside order dated 16.11.2002 vide which Special Judge, Patiala extended the benefit of Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code to the respondents subject to certain conditions.

2. The respondents have been named as accused in FIR Nos. 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 dated 5.9.2002 registered by Vigilance Bureau, Patiala for offences under Section 8/12 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the basis of statements made by Shri Prem Sagar and Shri Randhir Singh during the course of investigation of FIR No. 24 dated 30.4.2002 registered at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad, Patiala against Shri Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu, the then Chairman of Punjab Public Commission, Patiala (for short, the Commission) in connection with what has come to be known as recruitment scam of unusual magnitude.

3. The thrust of the allegation levelled against the respondents is that they had paid huge amount of bribe to Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu for ensuring their own selection or selection of their relatives for appointment to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch). FIR No. 64 relates to the candidates who had appeared for selection for appointment to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). FIR No. 65 concerns the candidates who were in Government service but had appeared in the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) examination. FIR No. 66 relates to those who are appointed to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) as fresh candidates. Those who were recruited to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) by nomination have been named as accused in FIR No. 67. FIR No. 68 relates to the candidates whose results of Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) examination have not been declared. One of the accused, namely, Gursharanbir Singh is said to have paid bribe to the Chairman of the Commission for appointment of his brother.

4. All the respondents applied for anticipatory bail. Learned Special Judge, Patiala disposed of their applications by a common order dated 16.11.2002 and extended the benefit of Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code to the respondents subject to the condition that they will join investigation as and when required; they shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; they shall surrender their passports and they shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

5. Shri R.S. Cheema, Senior Counsel appearing for the State argued that learned Special Judge, Patiala gravely erred in extending the benefit of Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code to the respondents ignoring the fact that absence of their custodial interrogation may frustrate the object of unearthing the scam which has unprecedented social dimensions. Shri Cheema submitted that the allegations levelled against the respondents are of extremely serious nature and argued that it is in public interest that they are subjected to thorough investigation while in custody. He pointed out that some of the candidates were supplied question papers in advance while others were favoured at the time of interview and a designed attempt was made by the then Chairman of the Commission to pollute the entire process of selection for illegal considerations. He further submitted that denial of custodial interrogation of the respondents will seriously prejudice the prosecution and will shake the public confidence in the system of administration of justice. In support of his arguments, Shri Cheema relied on State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 253; Directorate of Enforcement and another v. P.V. Prabhakar Rao, 1997 SCC (Crl.) 978 ; State v. Anil Sharma, 1997 SCC (Crl.) 1039 ;Dukhishyam Benupani, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria, ; Puran etc