Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh
CRM M-36767 of 2012 (O&M)
Desh Raj
v.
Central Bureau of Investigation
{Decided on 13/12/2012}
Bail--Grant of--To an under trial--Under trials are detained in judicial custody but if the under-trials are allowed to be detained in judicial custody for an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated.
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.13--Bail--Bribe--Acceptance of--Accused was Superintendent of Police--Allegedly demanded and received Rs. One Lakh from an Inspector of Police for helping him in departmental proceedings--Accused was in custody for 57 days--Bail granted on following grounds.
(1) Not the case of the CBI that the petitioner is a criminal, as a result of which the witnesses will be influenced. Only main witness is the complainant who himself is a police official and others are Gazetted Officers of the Income Tax Department. Besides this, the other evidence is in the shape of voice recordings, on the basis of which the transcripts have been shown to this Court.
(2) Prima facie the petitioner will not be in a position to tamper with the evidence specifically when he is under suspension. There is no apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from the process of law being an officer and tampering with the evidence more so when the substantive evidence, which is sought to be adduced by the CBI against the present petitioner, happens to be documentary evidence i.e. voice recording on the voice recorders.
(3) Merely on the ground that the petitioner is a Senior Police Officer and will be in a position to influence the witnesses is highly improbable and prima facie there is no such likelihood much-less evidence in this regard.
(4) Nothing specific that amount was sought as a bribe.
(5) Petitioners daughter was suffering from serious ailment and under going treatment--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439. (Paras 12 & 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Bail--Grant of--Principles summed up.
(a) There is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused till he is found to be guilty.
(b) The bail is the rule and denial thereof is the exception. For the purpose of denial of the bail there must be extra ordinary circumstances necessarily meaning that bail out not to be denied to an accused only on the ground of general sentiments of the community as it impairs the right to liberty guaranteed to an accused.
(c) While considering the grant of bail, both the factors, namely, the seriousness of charges and the severity of punishment which the offence carries must be taken into consideration.
(d) The bail ought to be granted in a case where there are no chances of the accused fleeing away from the processes of law or in other words, the accused, who is released on bail must be readily and willingly available to submit himself to the custody of the Court at any given point of time.
(e) The grant of bail ought not to be denied only on the perceived apprehension by the Court that the petitioner, if restored to a liberty, will tamper with the evidence. There must be some prima facie evidence on record or reasonable and justifiable grounds to believe that in case the benefit of bail is extended to an accused he is going to misuse his liberty or likely to create conditions which are not conducive to hold a fair trial. (Para 14)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Bail--Grant of--To an under trial--Under trials are detained in judicial custody but if the under-trials are allowed to be detained in judicial custody for an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated--Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial and the possibility of trial concluding in short period in the present case is remote--Concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal--However, an accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt--Constitution of India, Art.21. (Para 17)
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Bail--Grant of--Principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant who seeks bail, to take judgment and serve sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment at the end of trial--In this perspective, relevance of considerations is regulated by their nexus with the likely absence of the petitioner for fear of a severe sentence, if such be plausible in the case. (Para 11)
Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in case FIR No. RCCHG2012 ACO 23 dated 18.10.2012, under Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station CBI, Sector 30, Chandigarh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that CBI registered aforesaid FIR against petitioner - Desh Raj Singh, Superintendent of Police, City Chandigarh on the written complaint of Anokh Singh, Inspector/SHO, Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh. In his complaint, the complainant has alleged that a departmental enquiry was ordered against him by the Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T., Chandigarh on the basis of a report of the petitioner being a Superintendent of Police (City)/Supervisory Officer in connection with FIR No. 230 dated 28.08.2012 and FIR No. 224 dated 18.08.2012 for dereliction of duty, insubordination and not informing senior officers about crime. It is also alleged by the complainant that he was not at fault. In the FIR, it is further alleged that on 05.10.2012 in the evening, petitioner called the complainant on his Mobile No. 9779580926 from his Mobile No. 9779580905 and asked him to come to his residence at H.No. 114, Sector 23, Chandigarh. As the complainant reached at the house of the petitioner, he discussed about the functioning of complainant’s police station and demanded Rs. 5 lacs as bribe for not harassing him and for helping him in the inquiry by deposing in his favour. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount the petitioner allegedly reduced the bribe amount to Rs. 2 lacs. Thereafter, the complainant discussed the matter with a CBI official and told about the demand of bribe. The CBI official told the complainant that demand of bribe is to be verified by way of recording before initiating any action. The petitioner called the complainant to his office on 12.10.2012 and again demanded allegedly bribe of Rs. 2 lacs. The complainant expressed his inability to pay the amount in full. On this, the petitioner allegedly agreed to accept Rs. One lac as first installment. The complainant further informed the petitioner that he needed a week’s time for arranging the bribe amount and the complainant at his own recorded the conversation in his mobile. The complaint was marked to Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Inspector for verification and the verification conducted confirmed the demand of bribe by the petitioner from the complainant. Thereafter, the case was registered and trap was laid at the residence of the petitioner. The petitioner was allegedly caught red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs. One lac from the complainant. The said bribe amount was recovered from the drawer of the side table in the camp office of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 18.10.2012 at 9.00 p.m.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court for bail as his bail application was declined by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh vide order dated 08.11.2012.
4. On notice of motion, the respondent-CBI has filed reply. Sum and substance of the reply filed to the petition is that the complaint was registered after due verification and thereafter raid was conducted. In pursuance of the raid, the recovery of alleged bribe was effected. The conversations between the petitioner and the complainant were recorded. The complainant recorded his conversations with the petitioner firstly on his mobile. Subsequently, the conversations were recorded on two Soni Digital Voice Recorders used by the CBI at the pre-trap stage, as well as, during the course of trap. This was done in order to avoid possibility of leakage of information and for that reason shadow witnesses were also not joined. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is likely to influence the witnesses being a Senior Police Officer and he does not deserve the concess
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
