IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted based on the absence of a prima facie case and the health condition of the accused, balancing individual rights with the need for investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. A woman, aged 75 years, who holds a degree in MD in pediatrics and has served as a Pediatrics as well a Professor in various prestigious medical colleges and hospitals, suffering from advanced carcinoma, apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares that she has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioner’s counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and further contends that custodial interrogation and pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. Counsel for the petitioner has also permitted the Court to mention the petitioner’s disease.

4. State’s counsel opposes the bail.

5. Vide order dated 22.03.2024, this Court stayed the petitioner’s arrest and, considering her critical health condition, permitted her to join the investigation through video conference instead of traveling all the way from the USA to Amritsar, Punjab. Counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that she had joined the investigation through video conferencing, and the State’s Counsel did not dispute this fact.

6. While granting interim protection, this Court had also observed as follows, “Petitioner’s medical condition is extremely worse, whether accused in such cases can furnish digital surety bonds (in electronic form) is a question before this Court.” The Court had also appointed Ld. Amicus Curiae to assist. However, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will eclipse on 30-Jun-2024 and a new law, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS, 2023], prescribing criminal procedure will come into force with effect from 01-Jul-2024, as a consequence, this Court does not think it appropriate to answer the legal proposition leaving it open, and is confining the matter on merits. Consequently, Ld. Amicus Curiae are discharged with great appreciation for their assistance.

7. Prosecution case is being extracted from the reply dated 20.03.2024 filed by concerned DySP which reads as follows: -

“(4). That it is humbly submitted that the brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered by the deponent on 09.08.2023.The (deponent) received letter no.33690/VB/S-8 dated 09.08.2023 of Head Office Vigilance Bureau, Punjab and Diary no.7161 dated 09.08.2023 of SSP, Vigilance Bureau, Range Amritsar along with directions to lodge an FIR against petitioner and other accused. Whereby, Special Secretary of Rural Development and Panchayat of Punjab Government issued memo no.6/47/2023-3 RDE-3/5371 dated 07.08.2023 to Chief Director Vigilance Bureau, Punjab to register an FIR against Kuldeep Singh who was working as A.D.C. (Development), Pathankot at that time. It is submitted that the co-accused Kuldeep Singh wrongfully and maliciously decided the petition filed under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act 1971 regarding Govt. land measuring 734 Kanals 1 Marla in favour of private persons in case titled as “Smt. Veena Parmar and others Versus Gram Panchayat Gol Block, Narot Jaimal Singh Tehsil and District Pathankot”. In the said FIR, it has been written that Veena Parmar and others to get declared the ownership regarding the aforesaid land measuring 734 Kanals 1 Marla (shamlat land) in their favour filed a petition through their counsel on 13.12.2022. The aforesaid area of the land falls under 2(g)(iii) of Punjab Village Common Lands Act (Regulation) 1961. So, they want to get declared them as owner of the said Shamlat land. The co-accused Kuldeep Singh DDPO Retired working as A.D.C. (Development), Pathankot with the connivance of the accused persons and with malafide intention passed the order