Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Sumedh Singh Saini - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-32417 of 2021
Decided On : 12-08-2021
Anticipatory Bail - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 13(l)(b), 13(2) - 109 and 120-B IPC - [13(l)(b), 13(2), 109, 120-B] - The court granted interim bail to the petitioner subject to joining the investigation within one week from the date of the judgment. The petitioner was directed to surrender his passport if not already surrendered and to abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case related to amassing of disproportionate assets by an Executive Engineer and his father. The petitioner was named in the FIR based on transactions with the accused and was alleged to have ploughed back black money as white money. The petitioner argued that he was a victim of political vendetta and had no role in the assets of the accused. The State opposed the bail, citing suspicious transactions and made-up documents by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner were based on documentary evidence and banking transactions. It exercised restraint from delving further into the factual aspect at this stage and granted interim bail to the petitioner, considering his antecedents and Z-plus protection.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in suspicious transactions and amassing of disproportionate assets, as well as the contention of political vendetta against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the parameters for anticipatory bail as laid down in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), emphasizing the need for concrete facts and the discretion of the court in granting bail. It also highlighted the importance of custodial interrogation and the necessity to balance the prevention of harassment with the need for a fair investigation.
Final Decision: The court granted interim bail to the petitioner, subject to joining the investigation within one week and surrendering his passport if not already surrendered. The petitioner was directed to abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT
1. The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.
2. The prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 13 dated 2.8.2021, under Sections 13(l)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [as amended Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018] and Sections 109 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Phase-I, Punjab at Mohali, District SAS Nagar.
Facts of the case
3. The present FIR arises from vigilance enquiry No. 3 dated 17.12.2020. The enquiry was initiated against Nimrat Deep Singh, Executive Engineer, PWD (B&M) Department [hereinafter referred to as 'Al'] and his father-Surinderjit Singh Jaspal [hereinafter referred to as 'A2'], retired Lecturer from Government College Gurdaspur. The basis of enquiry was amassing of disproportionate assets by Al than his known sources of income. There were thirty-five properties owned by Al and his family. They were having twenty-two bank accounts with balance of more than Rs. 4,80,00,000/-, fixed deposits of more than Rs. l 1,18,00,000/- and foreign currency of about Rs. 2,12,00,000/-, amount of Rs. 10,00,00,000/-was spent through bank on different expenditures and some of the properties were exchanged. A2 sold the land to WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'WWICS') showing himself to be the owner, whereas the land was in the name of Surinderjit Singh and Sons (HUF) through Karta-Surinderjit Singh Jaspal. During the probe in FIR No. 11, dated 17.09.2020, it was revealed that A2 purchased House No. 3048, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh with the money received from WWICS. The allegations are that the sale consideration was less than the Collector's rates fixed. After demolition, the house was re-constructed. For re-construction, the amounts received from WWICS and from the petitioner from August, 2018 to September, 2019 were utilized.
4. As per A2, the petitioner was residing in his house as a tenant at the first floor. There was rent agreement dated 15.10.2018. The agreement was for eleven months. Monthly rent was Rs. 2,50,000/-. The tenant had to deposit Rs. 40,00,000/- as security and Rs. 5,00,000/- as two months advance rent. The rent agreement was to expire on 14.9.2019 and in case of failure of the tenant to vacate the house, he was liable to pay double the rent. As per the contents of the FIR, Rs. 6,40,00,000/- were transferred by the petitioner through various transactions in favour of his landlord. Al and A2 produced an agreement to sell dated 2.10.2019. The agreement was on plain paper and unregistered. The sale consideration fixed was Rs. 10,25,00,000/-. The petitioner had paid Rs. 40,00,000/-through RTGS, details mentioned in the agreement to sell. The petitioner had to pay Rs. 5,12,50,000/- before 31.3.2020 including the earnest money.
The balance amount was to be paid before registration of the sale deed. The date fixed for registration of the sale deed was on or before 2.10.2021.
According to the FIR, amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- was transferred back from the seller to the petitioner through RTGS in September, 2020.
5. It would be appropriate to note here that FIR No. 11 dated 17.9.2020 was registered against WWICS at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad Police Station at Mohali and the house in question is attached vide court's order dated 16.7.2021. The petitioner has been directed to deposit the rent in Government treasury.
6. On rejection of anticipatory bail, the petitioner is before this Court.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner
7. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner during his service period had a tenure in the Vigilance Bureau and number of criminal cases were registered against members of the political party. The petitioner is a victim of political vendetta and is being targeted by getting involved in one after another FIR, this is the fourth FIR. As is appare
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
