Custodial interrogation may be necessary in cases involving active participation in illegal activities, such as tax evasion and bribery, to unearth the extent of the involvement and ensure a proper investigation.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - By this common order, this court proposes to dispose of above titled criminal miscellaneous petitions as they arise out of the same set of facts.

2. The petitioners herein are seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 8 dated 21.08.2020 registered under Sections 7, 7 (a) and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Sections 420, 465, 467, 461, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau Phase-I S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

3. In brief, the facts as alleged are that the above FIR was result of an information received by the Vigilance Bureau that a person, namely Vijay Kumar, resident of Khanna is working in the field of transportation within cities of Khanna, Ludhiana and others. He had been indulging in the tax evasion in connivance with the officers/officials of Excise and Taxation Department. It is alleged that the tax was being evaded by ensuring that there is no checking or verification of the documents or the goods while being transported to and from State of Punjab. Heavy amount was being paid on a monthly basis as a bribe to the officers and officials of the taxation department. It is also stated that various other persons were involved in connivance with Vijay Kumar. The mobile number used by these persons was pin pointed after getting permission from the competent authority, technical inputs were collected, and call details were gathered. On 5th March, 2020, one person called Vijay Kumar on his mobile to inform that he had delivered bribe in district Moga, Faridkot and Ferozepur and asked as to whether Vijay Kumar will deliver the money to Ravi Nandan, Excise and Taxation Officer (ETO), Fazilka or he should deliver. There are other conversations with regard to amounts of money being paid to various officers and officials and a separate bribe given to the AETC, Fazilka. From the call records available of Vijay Kumar, it was found out that Vijay Kumar had a conversation with Kali Charan ETO 43 times from his mobile No. 7973224359 and had spoken with him 20 times from his 2nd mobile No. 9779200754. Piara Singh ETO, Moga, the petitioner in Crl. Misc. M 40426 of 2020 was named in the FIR, along with Varun Nagpal, ETO, Kali Charan ETO, Mobile Wing Chandigarh, Satpal Multani ETO Faridkot,Ved Prakash Jhakar, ETO Fazilka, Simran Brar B.P.C, as persons' who connived with Vijay Kumar, by passing vehicle carrying goods and in the evasion of GST by fabricating fake bills etc. Based upon the information gathered, after having put the phone call of Vijay Kumar under surveillance, FIR came to be registered against 8 persons. Apprehending arrest, anticipatory bail applications were filed by the petitioners herein which came to be rejected by the Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, leading to the filing of the instant bail applications.

4. Learned counsels for the petitioners in these petitions seeking anticipatory bail interalia would contend that they have been falsely implicated in the said FIR primarily on the basis of call records pertaining to one Vijay Kumar, which call records cannot be taken into consideration. It is argued that there is not even an iota of evidence to prove that the petitioners have accepted the bribe money.

5. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Ahluwalia, learned advocate appearing for petitioner Piara Singh in CRM-M-No. 40426 of 2020 vehemently argues that the petitioner was neither posted in Mobile Wing nor in the GST Branch and would have no concern/duty to check the transporters or any goods.

6. Mr. A.P.S. Deol, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. Himmat Singh Deol, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner Yadavindra Singh raises an additional plea that he was not named in the said FIR and has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of a disclosure statement made by Sukhvinder Singh alias Shinda and Rohit Kumar alias Rocky. It is argued that that disclosure statement of a co-accused is not admissible as evidence against the petitioner-Yada