Kanwal Kishore Jerath vs State (Union Territory, Chandigarh)

K.S. Kumaran, J.

The petitioner in all these four petitioner is the same person and he is seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the questions involved in these petitions are similar, common arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides and these applications are also being disposed of by this common order.

Crl. Misc. No. 19530M of 1999 relates to F.I.R. No. 1 dated 3.2.1998 registered under Sections 13(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) and 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Vigilance, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The allegation in this F.I.R. is that he received Rs. 72,32,316/ from Sharma Brothers and Sunil Kalia for placing orders.

Crl. Misc. No. 19524M of 1999 relates to F.I.R. No. 2 dated 23.9.1998 registered at the same police station under Sections 13(1)(b)(c)(d) and 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, in conspiracy with others, caused wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the Government to the extent of Rs. 51,84,485/.

Crl. Misc. No. 19528M of 1999 relates to F.I.R. No. 3 of 1998 dated 26.10.1998 under Section 13(1)(b)(c)(d) and 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code at the same Police Station. The allegation is that the certain firms which are favourites of the petitioner and run by coaccused Yash Paul Saggi were alloted work causing wrongful loss to Government to the extent of Rs. 35,00,159/.

Crl. Misc. No. 19526M of 1999 relates to F.I.R. No. 1 dated 16.3.1999 under Sections 13(1)(c), 2 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 409, 120B and 511 of the Indian Penal Code of the same Police Station. The allegation is that the petitioner prepared an inflated estimate of Rs. 41,33,450/ whereas the same work was allotted for Rs. 20,02,000/ by his successor.

The petitioner approached the Sessions Court Chandigarh for bail in all these cases but his request for bail was declined. The petitioner had also previously approached this Court with petitions for bail in all these cases, which were also dismissed by this Court holding that the backtrack of the petitioner disentitled him to bail, but at the same time permitting him to file a fresh bail application after a period of three months.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and have perused the records on file.

Raids were conducted in the house of the petitioner and other places and it is alleged that cash and gold were recovered, which according to the police were disproportionate to his income. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that though allegedly there were seven middlemen for bribing the various officers, all of them have been released on bail. He also points out that out of the total 37 accused, 16 were arrested and all of them have been granted bail except for the petitioner. He contends that the charge against the petitioner is that he entered into a conspiracy with the other officials and others, prepared inflated estimates, preferred favouritecontractors, delayed the tenders of the unfavoured, and received bribe apart from causing wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to himself and others. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the petitioner was suspended from service on 24.11.1997 and was also dismissed from service on 8.3.1999, and therefore, there is no scope or possibility for him to tamper with the records or evidence. He further contends that though the entries in the diaries of Dinesh Sharma, Suresh Sharma and Sunil Kalia are relied upon by the police, they are inadmissible in evidence. He contends that though it is alleged that the petitioner arrogated to himself all the powers to make purchases, this was done in pursuance of the letter written by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contends that the liberty of the individual being of prime importance, the petitioner be released on bail and if necessary by imposing conditions. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are almost 44 witnesses and 37 accused, and therefore, the trial will take a long time, and that the entire case depends upon documents which have been recovered, and therefore, custody of the petitioner is also not necessary. He also points out that Yash Paul Saggi one of the accused has been granted bail.

But the learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, pointing out the amounts involved either by way of bribe to the petitioner, loss to the Government and gain to certain individuals, contends that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail, inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be trusted to attend the trial, and he may flee away from justice. The learned counsel for the State contends that while the F.I.R. No. 1/98 was registered on 3.2.1998, the petitioner''s application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was declined by the Court on 23.2.1998 and that the Hon''ble Supreme Court had also declined his application on 27.3.1998 whereafter the petitioner absconded. He further contends that the petitioner who was declared proclaimed offender on 28.5.1998, surrendered only on 27.11.1998, and that the petitioner has got a tendency to escape and run away. He also points out that in this case oral evidence has also to be let in. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

The learned counsel for the State also contends that the diaries have been regularly maintained like regular books of account with all details, and therefore, it cannot be stated that they are inadmissible in evidence. He also contends that the case of the petitioner cannot be compared with those of the persons who have been arrested and released on bail inasmuch as the petitioner had absconded and had been declared as a Proclaimed Offender. The learned counsel for the State further contends that the enmity between the Home Secretary and the suspension and dismissal of the petitioner from service are not matters which can be taken into consideration at this stage.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 1994(2) RCR(Crl.) 601 : 1994(4) SCC 260 in support of his contention that a person should not be arrested merely on suspicion, but there should be necessity and justification for the arrest on the basis of some investigation. But this decision will not be applicable to the facts of this case because this is not a case where the petitioner was arrested during investigation and he was produced before Court. This is a case where after the registration of the F.I.R. on 3.2.1998, the petitioner had been avoiding arrest either by filing applications for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. which were dismissed or by absconding. He had been declared as proclaimed offender, and thereafter only he had surrendered. Further at this stage, it cannot also be stated that there is no justification or necessity to arrest the petitioner. In view of the high position occupied by the petitioner, the serious allegations against him and the amounts involved either by way of bribe or by way of wrongful loss to Government or wrongful gain to the petitioner and others, it cannot be stated that there was no necessity or justification for arresting the petitioner also.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, which lays down the criteria for grant or refusal of bail. This decision again does not help the petitioner inasmuch as this decision holds that the question whether the course of justice would be thwarted by accused who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of this Court to be released is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. I have already pointed out the conduct of the petitioner and the allegations against him, I am of the view that the release of the petitioner on bail would not be in the interest of justice.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in K.K. Jerath v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, 1998 SCC (Crl.) 809 wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that in considering a petition for grant of bail necessarily, if public interest requires detention of the citizen in custody for the purpose of investigation to be considered and rejected as otherwise, there could be hurdles in the investigation even resulting in tampering of evidence. This decision again does not help the case of the petitioner in view of his conduct. As pointed out already, the earlier applications filed by the petitioner for bail have been dismissed by this Court and I find that there are no new grounds for granting him bail.

Taking into consideration the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the State and pointed out by me above, but at the same time without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

Resultantly, all these petitions are dismissed.

Keep a copy of this order in all these petitions.

Petitions dismissed.