The court ruled that anticipatory bail was justified due to insufficient grounds for custodial interrogation, highlighting the need for careful consideration of allegations and evidence in corruption cases.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

The petitioner, posted as a Chief Engineer in Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, now retired, on the allegations of approving the sanction of funds to the contractor in contravention to the rules and that the work was never carried out, had come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Vide order dated 09.10.2023, this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner. After that, the matter was argued on several dates, and on 13.12.2023, the matter was reserved. However, while dictating the judgment, this Court wanted some more clarifications, particularly that the petitioner had projected that he was thoroughly honest and fully committed to the job and never took undue advantage; as such, this Court asked him to demonstrate his honesty by filing an affidavit, declaring his assets as well as of his spouse. On 04.01.2024, counsel for the petitioner made a statement that they have voluntarily complied with the same and handed over the affidavit, and they shall not take such declaration as self-incriminatory or violative of Article 20/21 of the Constitution of India or any other fundamental right/law. Even after that, the matter was heard six more times when it was finally reserved.

3. In paragraph 30 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

4. The State's counsel further contends that given the criminal past; the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.

5. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 2 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.

6. Considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR, the prosecution stands withdrawn or the filed a closure report, cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and the graver the criminal history, the slushier the puddles.

7. Petitioner has similar allegations of corruption in all the four FIRs. He was arrested in two FIRs and was granted anticipatory bail in the other two FIRs. Despite that, this Court is not considering the previous history to reject the bail first because the petitioner stands retired and secondly because the incidents are somewhat similar, as such proceeds to decide the bail on merits.

8. Facts of the case are being taken from reply dated 02.11.2023 filed by concerned DySP which reads as follows: -

"2. The allegations in brief as contained in the FIR are