The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in granting bail, and the imposition of stringent conditions to prevent influencing the investigation and fleeing justice.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

2. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.

3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. The State opposes bail.

REASONING:

5. During investigation of the case, the FIR No.6 dated 2.6.2022, captioned above, was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused Harmohinder Singh, who was a contractor with the Forest Department, made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, to the police, to the effect that from 2017 to 2022, he has been regularly paying bribe to the officers of the forest department, politicians and their aides and he had maintained a diary in this regard, which he had concealed in the basement of his residence. Based on such disclosure statement, the accused got recovered the diary, in which the names of the persons to whom bribe had been paid for felling of khair trees were mentioned. The accused further disclosed that during every season, he paid bribe for taking permit for cutting of about 7000 khair trees. He paid money for each tree to the forest persons right from Forest Guard and upwards. He paid Rs.500/- per tree to Sadhu Singh Dharamsot, Ex-Forest Minister, Punjab, Rs.200/- to Divisional Forest Officer, Rs.100/- to Range Officer, Rs.100/- to Block Officer and Rs.100/- to Forest Guard. In this way, he had paid bribe of Rs.70 lakhs in every season.

6. In the status report filed by concerned Dy.S.P., Vigilance Bureau, Unit, SAS Nagar, Mohali, it was mentioned that the diary revealed financial transactions between the said accused and the petitioners. The status report also revealed that 17 persons were arraigned as accused. Although there are some specific allegations against every accused, but common allegations are of taking bribe money from Harmohinder Singh @ Honey.

7. At the bail stage, this Court is not supposed to analyse the absolute credibility of such diary. Furthermore, the grant or refusal of bail is not a finding on acquittal or conviction. Only question before this Court is that whether pre-trial incarceration which ranges from 4 to 7 months for the accused is sufficient or not. In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and given the nature of allegations, I am of the considered opinion that further pre-trial incarceration for the accused is not justifiable and it might be prejudicial to the accused. The petitioner's counsel has stated at bar that he would have no objection to any conditions which this Court might impose upon the accused, including their family members, for disclosing all their assets. Learned senior counsel representing all the accused have jointly stated that they would be voluntarily comply with all such conditions in letter and spirit. Thus, given above, in case this Court direct the accused and their family members to disclose their all assets would father facilitate investigation.

8. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned co