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 (O&M) with CRM-M-17795 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 14-09-2022
Prevention of Corruption Act - Anticipatory Bail - Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 109 and 120-B IPC - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED: The court discussed the parameters for considering application for anticipatory bail as laid down in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another etc., 2012 (4) SCC 379 and the guiding principles for dealing with the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as laid down in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2020(5) SCC 1. The court also emphasized that only prima facie case is to be considered while dealing with the application for grant of bail or anticipatory bail. The court made the interim anticipatory bail granted absolute, subject to the petitioner joining the investigation as and when called for.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail in a case related to amassing of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC sections. The petitioner was alleged to have been involved in transactions with the accused A2. The petitioner claimed political vendetta and submitted explanations for the financial transactions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had cooperated in the investigation, handed over required documents, and joined the investigation. The court made the interim anticipatory bail granted absolute, subject to the petitioner joining the investigation as and when called for.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case related to amassing of disproportionate assets and his alleged involvement in transactions with the accused A2.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the parameters for considering application for anticipatory bail and the guiding principles for dealing with the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It also highlighted that only prima facie case is to be considered while dealing with the application for grant of bail or anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court made the interim anticipatory bail granted absolute, subject to the petitioner joining the investigation as and when called for. The petitioner shall keep on joining investigation in both the cases as and when called for. The pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan, J (Oral) - Reply filed in CRM-No. 17795 of 2022 is taken on record. Mr. Aman Pal, Addl. AG Haryana, on instructions from Mr. Sukhnaz Singh, DSP submits that the State adopts the reply filed today in other case i.e. CRM-M-32417 of 2021.
2. The petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 12.8.2021 in FIR No. 13 dated 2.8.2021, under Sections 13(1)(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, which reads as under:
''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(1)(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 'A1'] 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 A1 than his known sources of income. There were thirty-five properties owned by A1 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.11,18,00,000/- 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. A1 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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on the parameters for considering application for anticipatory bail and the guiding principles for dealing with the application under ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in granting anticipatory bail based on concrete facts and the need to balance the prevention of harassment with the requirem....
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
