The main legal point established in the judgment is the active involvement of the accused in fraudulent activities related to e-auction proceedings and allotment of plots, emphasizing the necessity of custodial interrogation to uncover the modus operandi.

JUDGMENT

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two petitions wherein petitioners Gagandeep Goyal and Pradeep Kumar, seek grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.09, dated 28.7.2022, Police Station Economic Offences Wing Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana, under Sections 7, 7-A, 8, 12, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in the year 2018), Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC (Sections 65, 66, 66-C, 66-D of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 added later on).

2. Since, the present case i.e. FIR No.9, dated 28.7.2022, came to be registered during the course of investigation of another FIR i.e. FIR No.8, dated 14.7.2022, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Economic Offences Wing Punjab, Ludhiana, under Sections 7, 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Amendment Act, 2018, Section 120-B IPC, it is apposite to briefly refer to the facts of the said FIR i.e. FIR No.8. The aforesaid FIR No.8, was registered with the specific allegation that Harmeet Singh posted as Junior Assistant in Ludhiana Improvement Trust, was demanding bribe for himself as well as on behalf of Parveen Kumar, Sales Clerk and Kuljeet Kaur, Executive Officer, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, for extending undue benefit to private persons in the matter of allotment of plots etc. A trap was laid and Harmeet Singh was caught red-handed while accepting an amount of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification which also led to arrest of Parveen Kumar, Sales Clerk and Kuljeet Kaur, Executive Officer.

3. During the course of investigation of aforesaid FIR No.8, Kuljeet Kaur, Executive Officer, disclosed that she as well as other officials of Ludhiana Improvement Trust, had committed various embezzlements, manipulations, frauds etc. for the purpose of allotment of plots to various individuals, in return for illegal gratification. She also disclosed the modus operandi adopted by the officials of Ludhiana Improvement Trust. Consequently, the instant FIR No. 9, dated 28.7.2022, came to be lodged against 15 accused namely Raman Bala Subramanium, Ex-Chairman, Kuljit Kaur, Executive Officer, Parveen Kumar, Sale Clerk, Ankit Narang, SDO, Gagandeep Goel, Clerk, Sandeep Sharma, PA to Chairman, Manjit Singh Sethi (purchaser of plot after manipulation), Sanjeev Jain @ Sanjay Jain (private property dealer), Manjit Singh (private purchaser of one plot after manipulation), Pardeep Kumar (private IT expert), Buta Ram, XEN, Engineering Branch, Jagdev Singh, XEN, Engineering Branch, Inderjeet Singh, JE Engineering Branch, Mandeep Singh, J.E. (O&M Cell), Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, Kamaldeep Singh (owner of plot No.1544-D).

4. It is the case of prosecution that Pradeep Kumar was a computer expert and was running a Cyber Cafe at Ludhiana, and that he in connivance with the officials of the Improvement Trust, particularly Ankit Narang, SDO, used his technical expertise in computers in manipulating the bids in e-acution of plots to get the plots allotted to their favourites. The case of the prosecution against Gagandeep Goyal, Clerk is that he by manipulating the official record had got restored, the allotment of plots which had previously been cancelled and had transferred ownership of such restored plots in favour of his favourites, including Lovely Rani, with whom he had been residing as her husband, since long.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner-Pradeep Kumar has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that although, the allegations are to the effect that he, with his technical expertise, had hacked e-auction portal, but the said e-auction portal is a highly reliable software, which is used by several agencies, across the entire nation, and there has been no such instance of hacking, till date.

6. Learned counsel representing Gagandeep Goyal has submitted that there is no evidence worth credence to establish the allegations against the petitioner of having committed any