IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
Raj Kumar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 36306, 41438, 54004 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 13-01-2023
Anticipatory Bail - Corruption - IPC 201, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471/120-B and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 13(1)(d)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of corruption and irregularities in the release of payments to a coaching firm for a government scheme. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while there were allegations of irregularities, the matter appeared to be more of a civil liability arising from a breach of contract rather than a criminal offense. The court also noted the delay in filing the FIR, raising doubts about the criminal nature of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving corruption and irregular payments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the timing of the payments, the findings of an inquiry report, and the delay in filing the FIR to conclude that it was a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - This order shall dispose off the above mentioned three petitions filed on behalf of Raj Kumar, Rajinder Sharma and Ved Parkash seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 0006 dated 14.7.2022 under Sections 201, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471/120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station SVB, Panchkula, District Panchkula.
2. As per the case of prosecution, in the year 2007, the Department of Technical Education, Haryana envisaged a scheme for imparting free coaching to the Scheduled Castes candidates of Haryana for entrance examinations for Engineering/Medical. This scheme was carried forward by the Government Engineering Colleges in the year 2007 and from 2008 onwards, the Department of Technical Education, Haryana decided to impart coaching through some professional coaching centres and accordingly expression of interest was invited from general public.
3. It is further the case of prosecution that Mastermind Classes Private Ltd., Gwalior had been selected as a successful bidder for imparting free coaching to the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes category in Haryana against expression of interest floated by the Department of Technical Education, Haryana. M/s Mastermind Classes Private Ltd., Gwalior is having a franchise agreement with Mastermind Classes, Chandigarh through its Project Director, Ved Parkash. Ved Parkash, being the Project Director at Chandigarh got executed the project of Mastermind Classes, Gwalior and accordingly, an agreement dated 20.6.2008 had been entered into between the Director, Department of Technical Education, Haryana and M/s Mastermind Classes Private Ltd., Gwalior. The agreement dated 20.6.2008 was valid for a period of 3 years upto 2011 and free coaching was to be imparted upto 30.11.2011. The government was to give an amount of Rs.15,88,26,881/- to the firm M/s Mastermind Classes Private Ltd. for the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 i.e. upto 30.3.2011. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the contract continued for the year 2008, 2009, 2010 and requisite payments were made to the firm concerned by the Department of Technical Education, Haryana. It was subsequently found that the annual course for the year 2010 was prematurely concluded i.e. much prior to the nominated date of closure i.e. 30.3.2011, though, the firm had already received the payment. It is alleged that the payment to the tune of Rs.14,60,41,432/- from 2008 onwards had been made to Ved Prakash, Project Director, M/s Mastermind Classes, Chandigarh and to the tune of Rs.1,27,85,449/- to M/s Mastermind Classes Private Ltd., Gwalior.
4. It is further alleged that Rajinder Sharma, the then Deputy Director, Technical Education Department had shown undue haste in release of payment. He had accepted the files in his individual capacity and had personally received approval from the then Director General, Technical Education Department to finalise the payment to the firm M/s Mastermind Classes but it was found that two approvals for payments did not bear regular dispatch number and had been assigned a special number only. After getting the said approvals, the same were forwarded to Shri M.S.Sehrawat, Principal, Polytechnic, Neelokheri for due payment and were further passed on to the Treasury, Neelokheri on the same day i.e. on 31.3.2011 for payment to the firm which was accordingly paid on the same very day by way of demand draft to the tune of Rs. 2,00,00,192/- in favour of M/s Mastermind Classes, Chandigarh and Rs.1,20,52,568/- to M/s Mastermind Classes Private Ltd., Gwalior.
5. It is, thus, alleged that Rajender Sharma, the then Deputy Director Technical Education Department and Shri M.S. Sehrawat, the then Principal, Polytechnic, Neelokheri alongwith Praveen Gupta, the then Director, Mastermind Classes Private Ltd. Gwalior, Naveen Gupta, the then Director, M/s Mastermind Classes Private Ltd., Gwalior, Shri Rajender Ba
AI
The judgment established that in cases of alleged corruption, the timing of events, documentary evidence, and the nature of the allegations are crucial in determining the need for anticipatory bail.
The court emphasized the serious nature of economic offences and allowed anticipatory bail based on parity between accused, subject to cooperation with the investigation.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when personal liberty is at stake, provided the accused are willing to cooperate with the investigation.
Anticipatory bail – Being an extra-ordinary remedy, it should be resorted to only in a special case.
Anticipatory Bail – Successive anticipatory bail applications cannot be maintained without any change in circumstances.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when personal liberty is at stake, especially in the absence of strong evidence or objections from the prosecution.
Anticipatory bail can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and successive bail applications should demonstrate a change in circumstances.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.