K.K.Jerath vs U.T.Chandigarh

R.L. Anand, J.

By this order I dispose of two Criminal Misc. Nos. 3243M of 1998, Er. K.K. Jerath v. U.T. Chandigarh and others and 3788M of 1998, Sunil Kumar Kalia and others v. U.T. Chandigarh. Both the petitions have arisen from case FIR No. 1 dated 3rd February, 1998 registered in Police Station Vigilance, U.T. Chandigarh, under Section 13(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and sub section (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It may be mentioned here that Er. K.K. Jerath has directly moved the petition in the High Court while Sarvshri Sunil Kumar Kalia, Suresh Sharma and Dinesh Sharma earlier moved the petition under Section 438, Cr.P.C., in the court of Special Judge, Chandigarh, who vide order dated 10th February, 1998 dismissed their petition. I would have preferred had Er. K.K. Jerath also moved the petition at the first instance before the Special Judge, Chandigarh, because the High Court would always like to have the views of the Special Judge also for either declining or accepting the anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. However, in the present case as the coaccused of Er. K.K. Jerath had applied earlier before the Special Judge, who dismissed their petition under Section 438, Cr.P.C., therefore, I am not relegating Er. K.K. Jerath to file the petition at the first instance before the Court of Special Judge, Chandigarh.

The Investigating Wing of the Incometax Department had conducted raids in the houses of Shri K.K. Jerath, Chief Engineer (under suspension) and some other officials/officers of the Engineering Department, U.T. Chandigarh, as well as the contractors and suppliers and recovered cash, jewellary and documents which made to reveal that Shri Jerath was possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. During the course of raids, two diaries were also recovered from the houses of Shri Sunil Kumar Kalia, Shri Suresh Sharma and Shri Dinesh Sharma accused and on their examination it revealed that these persons were acting as middlemen between Er. K.K. Jerath and the firms which were on D.G.S. and D rate contracts, supplying electrical and public health goods to the Engineering Department, U.T. Chandigarh. Inquiry was held by the Vigilance Department, U.T. Chandigarh, and it revealed that the diaries contained entries in respect of kickbacks made to Shri K.K. Jerath and other officers/officials and the diaries also contained record of receipts and expenditures of these persons during the period under reference and was more or less in the form of a cash book. The payment of kickbacks was revealed to have been made by them of huge amount to Shri K.K. Jerath, his P.A. and Peon and other officials of the Engineering Department at various levels as commission. Attempt has also been made during the course of investigation to decode the entries, which run under 12 heads as under :

(i) Date

(ii) Detail

(iii) Household expenses

(iv) Petrol/T.A.

(v) Salary/Sales

(vi) S.O. (expenses, commission to supply orders)

(vii) Note

(viii) Office expenses

(ix) Transfer of funds

(x) Loan/Advances

(xi) Receipt

(xii) Balance

The names of the firms on which the supply orders have been placed have also been indicated against each such payment and those dates almost correspond to the dates on which the orders were directly placed with those firms by the Engineering Department for the supply of the goods. Learned Special Judge gave the reasons for rejection when he rejected the bail application of Shri Sunil Kumar Kalia, Shri Suresh Sharma and Shri Dinesh Sharma in paras Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the order dated 10th February, 1998. I would like to reproduce the said paras in the present order as under as those reasons would also be relevant visavis the case of Shri K.K. Jerath, though he did not apply at the first instance before the Special Judge :

"8. There is no denying the fact that grant of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that has been provided under law and it is to be granted only in exceptional case if special grounds are made out for that. The Apex Court in the authority reported as State Rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) RCR (Crl.) 268 : 1997(7) Supreme Court 651, has held that the consideration which should weigh with a court while dealing with a request for anticipatory bail need not be the same as for an application to release on bail after arrest and also that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitationorientated than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a prearrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that reasonable police officers would conduct themselves in a reasonable manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.

In my considered opinion, the facts of the present case are a bit peculiar. The facts are yet to be determined on the basis of entries found in the diaries of the present applicants and their release on bail at this juncture is likely to retard and hamper the investigation. The allegations are very serious and the grant of bail in anticipation of arrest in the wake of such serious allegations will not be in the larger interest of public or the State.

The duly sworn affidavit of Dinesh Kumar applicant has been placed on the file to the effect that K.K. Jerath has filed anticipatory bail before the Hon''ble High Court, arising out of this very FIR and that notice of that application has been given to the State for 23.2.1998 and in the meantime the arrest of K.K. Jerath has been stayed under usual orders, but the learned counsel for the applicants could not show as to how that order could render any help to the present applicants. His argument that K.K. Jerath was the principal accused of the FIR also does not appear to be correct. The sustained interrogation of the present applicants is likely to facilitate the investigation in bringing to light many more facts because as per the entries in the diaries kickbacks are alleged to have been given to many more persons.

The learned counsel for the applicants relying upon the authority reported as L.K. Advani v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1997 Crl. L.J. 2559, argued that these diaries alleged to have been recovered were not admissible into evidence, but at this stage much value cannot be attached to this argument. The things are yet at the investigation stage and the prosecution in my opinion deserves to be given a free hand to proceed with the investigation of the case. The application is accordingly dismissed."

Aggrieved by the order dated 10th February, 1998, Shri Sunil Kumar Kalia, Shri Suresh Sharma and Shri Dinesh Sharma have filed Criminal Misc. No. 3788M of 1998 and as I have already stated above, Shri K.K. Jerath has directly filed Criminal Misc. No. 3243M of 1998 in the High Court.

It will be useful for me to incorporate the material averments of Crl. Misc. No. 3243M of 1998 at the first instance in order to appreciate the contentions raised by Shri K.K. Jerath in his petition. It has been averred by Shri Jerath in the petition that he was appointed as Chief Engineer of the Chandigarh Administration on 26th October, 1994 in compliance of the orders passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. He was appointed Secretary of the Engineering Department on 26th October, 1995. When he took over as Chief Engineer of the Administration, at that time Shri Sanjay Kothari was the Home Secretary and Secretary of the Engineering Department. Shri Sanjay Kothari was repatriated to his parent State of Haryana on completion of his term with the Chandigarh Administration. On his repatriation to his parent State of Haryana, the charge of the Secretary of the Engineering Department was also vested in the Chief Engineer. Smt. Anuradha Gupta, respondent No. 3 of Crl. Misc. No. 3243M of 1998 took over as Home Secretary of the Chandigarh Administration in the month of October 1995 and she was unhappy for the charge of the most important department of the Administration having been taken away from her and was given to the Chief Engineer. While the petitioner was Secretary (Engineering), Smt. Anuradha Gupta was Secretary (Home). Both these offices enjoy parallel positions. It is further alleged by petitioner Shri K.K. Jerath that Senior Officers Conference is held once every month. Besides discussing important matters concerning the Administration, budget performance relating to each department is discussed. It was the duty of the Chief Engineer to make projections regarding budget achievements of every department every month. The financial and physical achievements of the departments were used to be looked after by Smt. Anuradha Gupta, respondent No. 3, who was found to be below mark as she did not care to arrange administrative approvals of the scheme for which estimates were sent to her. She, therefore, felt annoyed when it was pointed out in the Senior Officers Conference that because of her inability to arrange the administrative approvals of the estimates that the budget performance of the departments placed under her charge was poor. Respondent No. 3 always felt sore with the petitioner Shri K.K. Jerath as the latter had been writing D.O. Letters to respondent No. 3 in that regard. It is further alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 Smt. Anuradha Gupta was the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Chandigarh Administration. She arranged complaints from some disgruntled elements and instituted vigilance inquiry No. 24 against the petitioner on 9th April 1997. The matter of vigilance inquiry came up before the High Court and this Court was pleased to dismiss the petition of the contractors, finding no merit in it. After the dismissal of the petition it was decided to examine the matter in the Law Department as to whether the Administration should go ahead with Vigilance Inquiry No. 24 or not. The Legal Remembrancer, U.T. Chandigarh, asked for the original complaint, but respondent No. 3 did not send back the file to him, as she was interested to go ahead with the Vigilance Inquiry. It is further alleged by the petitioner that Smt. Anuradha Gupta has a sister by the name of Smt. Rekha Shukla, who is posted as Assistant Director (Investigation), Incometax Department at Ambala, Haryana. She was specially brought from Ambala to conduct investigation as a sequel to the raid by the Incometax Department at the house of Shri K.K. Jerath petitioner. The petitioner Shri Jerath was informed by some persons, who had been visiting Income Tax Department, that Smt. Rekha Shukla was interested in the fabrication of some evidence against him. She is working at the instance of respondent No. 3 to fabricate the records. So much so, Smt. Anuradha Gupta, who is the Chief Vigilance Officer with the Chandigarh Administration, deputed Shri Assa Nand, O.S.D. Vigilance, to the Income Tax Department to collect material for fabricating the criminal case against the petitioner. Shri K.K. Jerath petitioner has learnt that the Vigilance Cell of the U.T. Administration has registered a criminal case against him and he is likely to be arrested and that is why he has moved the present petition in the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioner Shri Jerath even tried his level best to get the copy of the FIR but he could not get it because respondent No. 3 had given the instructions to the Police Department not to supply the copy to him.

The other three petitioners have stated in their petition that they have been falsely implicated. The alleged documents were recovered by the Income Tax Authorities on 20th November, 1997. No recovery is to be effected from them and they are not required for any investigation. The Vigilance Department has already made the inquiries and it has already taken in possession the entire record. the said petitioners have also joined the investigation, which was conducted by the Income Tax Department. They have nothing to do into the matter. They should also be enlarged on bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C.

Before I deal with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I would like to make a mention that three replies have also been filed on behalf of the U.T. Administration, the Investigating Officer and Smt. Anuradha Gupta, though notice in both the petitions was only given to the U.T. Administration. These replies have been filed in view of the allegations levelled by Shri K.K. Jerath against respondent No. 3 Smt. Anuradha Gupta. The U.T. Administration, i.e., respondent No. 1, wanted to explain its position as to under what circumstances the action has been taken. The Investigating Officer has also clarified his position with regard to investigation. Similarly, Smt. Anuradha Gupta has filed the reply in which she has categorically denied about the alleged malice, as averred by Shri K.K. Jerath in his petition. The Administration in its reply has stated that Vigilance Inquiry No. 24 dated 9th April, 1997 and other related matters have no bearing on FIR No. 1 dated 3rd February, 1998, which relates to the payment of illegal gratification to Shri K.K. Jerath. It is the joint case of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that on 20th and 21st November, 1997 during the pendency of the Vigilance Inquiry, the Income Tax Department conducted raids/searches on the residences and offices of the petitioner Shri K.K. Jerath and other officers of the Engineering Department and certain private individuals. During those raids and searches, certain documents were seized from the premises of Shri Suresh Sharma and Shri Dinesh Sharma, who are brothers and Shri Sunil Kumar Kalia. These documents contained entries recording illegal gratification paid to Shri K.K. Jerath petitioner, his personal staff and other officials by certain suppliers to seek favours from him. An investigation by the Vigilance Department of the Chandigarh Administration further confirmed that Shri Suresh Sharma, Shri Dinesh Sharma and Shri Sunil Kalia were the middlemen between the petitioner Shri K.K. Jerath and the firms supplying electrical and public health materials to the Chandigarh Administration. The said middlemen were paying huge amounts running into lakhs of rupees to the petitioner and others for obtaining favours and procuring supply orders. Based on these investigations carried out by the Vigilance Department of the Chandigarh Administration, FIR No. 1 dated 3rd February, 1998 was registered against petitioner Shri K.K. Jerath. It is also stated by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that during investigation by the Vigilance Department of the Chandigarh Administration, special unit of the CBI, New Delhi, has also registered a criminal case against the petitioner under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for amassing wealth and assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The said criminal case is being investigated independently by the Special Unit of the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi. Thus in brief the stand of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in their separate replies is that the present FIR No. 1 dated 3rd February, 1998 is independent from the investigation which was conducted by the Vigilance Department and on the basis of which the case was registered under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegations that petitioner Shri K.K. Jerath was found in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It may be mentioned here that when the house of petitioner Shri K.K. Jerath was raided on 20th/21st November, 1997 a huge amount of cash, jewellery and documents were allegedly recovered as a result of which Shri K.K. Jerath was placed under suspension on 24th November, 1997 by the Chandigarh Administration. So far as the allegations of FIR No. 1 dated 3rd February, 1998 are concerned, it is stated by the prosecution that Sharma Brothers gave kickbacks amounting to Rs. 44,07,100/ and out of this, the total amount of Rs. 43,35,800/ was paid to Shri K.K. Jerath, as per figures of the diaries and some of the amount has gone to Mr. Vashishth and the Peon.

Smt. Anuradha Gupta, respondent No. 3, has also denied the allegations of mala fides and bias levelled against her. According to her these allegations have been made only to distract the High Court from the real issue involved in the present case. She has categorically stated in her reply that the Vigilance Inquiry No. 24 is pending since 9th April, 1997 and the inquiry is being conducted by the Vigilance Cell of the Chandigarh Administration. Respondent No. 3 is not involved in the day to day investigations in the said inquiry. Even otherwise, even though respondent No. 3 is the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Chandigarh Administration, the petitioner has never raised any plea of malice or bias during the course of the enquiry since 9th April, 1997. Now the allegations have been fabricated in order to show bias at the hands of respondent No. 3. She never created any unpleasantness against the petitioner during the course of several meetings convened by her. This respondent has also denied the other material averments of the petitioner qua her and has finally stated that she is being unnecessarily dragged into the controversy.

I have heard Shri R.S. Ghai, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of petitioner Shri K.K. Jerath; Shri C.P. Sapra, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. 3788M of 1998; Shri R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Ajai Lamba, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2; while Shri M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, pleaded the case on behalf of respondent No. 3 Smt. Anuradha Gupta. With the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record of the case.

Shri R.S. Ghai, Senior Advocate, submitted that FIR No. 1 dated 3rd February, 1998 registered under Section 13(1)(a) (b) (c) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was nothing but the result of strained relations between Shri K.K. Jerath and Smt. Anuradha Gupta and it was a mala fide act on the part of the respondents. The police has already recorded the statements of the suppliers, who had categorically stated that they had never passed any kickbacks to Shri K.K. Jerath or any of the petitioners. The CBI has also investigated the facts. Even the Sharma Brothers have been interrogated. The evidence on which the respondent Administration is relying is vague. There is not an iota of apprehension expressed by the respondents that the petitioners would flee from justice or that they would tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation. In these circumstances it is a fit case where the power under Section 438, Cr.P.C., should be invoked by the High Court and these powers have not been rightly exercised by the learned Special Judge, Chandigarh, who declined the bail application of Sharma Brothers and Shri sunil Kumar Kalia.

The bail applications have been opposed by Shri R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, by stating that there are serious allegations against all the petitioners. The Investigating Officer should be given free hand to investigate the matter. The petitioners must make out a special case to invoke the provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C., in their favour. The petitioner Shri K.K. Jerath had been enjoying the powers of Chief Engineer and if he is allowed to move freely, there are chances that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence, which will adversely affect the investigation. Present case is such where the enlargement of the petitioners on anticipatory bail would be totally prejudicial to the interests of the prosecution.

Section 438, Cr.P.C., lays down as follows :

"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.

(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a nonbailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or to the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.

(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under subsection (3) of Section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.

(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under subsection (1)."

The provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C., were interpreted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as by the various High Courts from time to time. In para No. 22 of the judgment reported as Gurbaksh Singh Sibia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1632, the Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as follows :

"........ We will really be saying once too often that all discretion has to be exercised with care and circumspection, depending on circumstances justifying its exercise. It is unnecessary to travel beyond it and subject the wide power conferred by the legislature to a rigorous code of selfimposed limitations."

Thus it will be a question of fact in each case as to whether the provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C., should or should not be invoked. Some of the guidelines can be summed up in deciding the bail application under Section 438, Cr.P.C., such as nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; repetition of offence; jeopardising his own life being faced with the grim prospects of possible conviction in the case; tampering with witnesses and the history of the cases as well as of the investigation and other relevant grounds which may apply to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. This Court is also cognizant of the principles of law in dealing with such like matters that anticipatory bail should not be refused merely because prosecution claims that the accused is wanted in police custody for the purposes of investigation. Genuineness of alleged need for police custody has also to be examined and it must be balanced against the duty of courts to uphold the dignity of every man and vigilantly guard his rights to liberty without jeopardising the State object of law and order. Thus the person seeking anticipatory bail has to satisfy the Court by making out a special case that the charges levelled against him are mala fide and stem from ulterior motive. This court will be justified in declining the bail application, if it comes to the conclusion that there was no attempt on the part of the prosecution to involve the accused in a false case with a view to disgrace him or to malign him and that the conduct of such accused does not inspire confidence and that the investigation is still in progress, which should be given free hand to go to the root in order to unearth the crime. The importance of investigation has also been considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dukhisyham Benupani, Asstt. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria, 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 354 : 1998(1) Supreme Court Cases 52, where their Lordships of the Supreme Court had taken into consideration the seriousness of the allegations and magnitude of the amount involved in the case. The Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to say that "blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual." In the judgment reported as State Rep. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 268 : JT 1997(7) SC 651, it was further held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that effective interrogation of the suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and materials which would have been concealed. Further stress was laid by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that considerations for granting anticipatory bail are different from post arrest bail applications. Para No. 6 of the judgment I would like to quote in extenso for the decision of the present petitions, and the same is as under :

"6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitationorientated than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a prearrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with a danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

Now I record the allegations, which are supposed to be considered by me at this juncture. Raid was conducted at the house of Shri Jerath on 20th November, 1997. It is stated at the Bar that Rs. 6,00,000/, 2 kgs. of gold ornaments besides 9 kgs. of silver ornaments were recovered. This raid was conducted by the Income Tax Authorities. A case under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was prima facie made out against him. It is different from the case under hand, which has been registered under Section 13(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the said Act. If the scope of both the criminal proceedings is separate, there is no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri K.K. Jerath that these very allegations were earlier inquired into by the Income Tax Authorities and by the CBI Authorities and that the subsequent registration of the present FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, which is being done at the instance of Smt. Anuradha Gupta, respondent No. 3. If during the course of one investigation it transpires that the accused had committed some more offence under different provisions of the Act, the State is not debarred from registering a case against the accused. The present case is based on the allegations that the petitioner Shri K.K. Jerath received kickbacks/bribe running into 43 lacs and odd in order to do favour to the suppliers or that the remaining three petitioners acted as middlemen between the suppliers/contractors and Shri K.K. Jerath, these allegations furnish an independent cause of action to the administration. If the scope of both the investigations is different, there is no bar for the administration to register a separate FIR. Petitioner Shri K.K. Jerath enjoyed the position of Chief Engineer. Prima facie there are serious allegations against him. These allegations require deep and thorough investigation. The petitioner had been enjoying the status in the official circle. There is a genuine apprehension of the prosecution that if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, he might tamper with the prosecution evidence by contacting the suppliers or influence other members of the staff of the Department. In this manner the investigation can be hampered with and this is not the requirement of the law that investigation should be allowed to die in the middle. The interrogation of the petitioner in Police custody can fetch useful information for the advancement of the investigation itself.

It was one of the primary arguments of Mr. R.S. Ghai that suppliers have deposed that they did not pay any kickbacks to the petitioner. The socalled middlemen have also deposed in favour of Shri K.K. Jerath. This argument is without any force. It was always expected for a coaccused to make a favourable statement in favour of his coaccused. Nobody would like to invite trouble for himself unnecessarily. Reading of the incriminating documents would show that these documents have been written datewise. There is a clear mention of the passing of the bribe/kickbacks to Shri K.K. Jerath and his staff. Under what circumstances, for what consideration and for what motive these transactions took place, is a matter to be inquired into and this can only be inquired into if the custody of the petitioners is allowed to remain with the Police for their sustained interrogation.

Now I come to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present FIR was the produce of malice, mala fides and vengeance on the part of Smt. Anuradha Gupta, who brought her sister into the picture from Ambala for the purpose of conducting raids and for further on going investigations. It is very easy to level allegations because respondent No. 3. Smt. Anuradha Gupta is the Home Secretary of the Chandigarh Administration. If luckily or otherwise she has a sister also posted in the Income Tax Department, which is not under her control, that does not mean that Smt. Rekha Shukla (her sister) is toeing line of action at the asking of respondent No. 3 Smt. Anuradha Gupta. It is not a oneman show. The allegations against the petitioners were verified by the Advisor also. Home Secretary is not all in all in the UT Administration. It is a case of shared responsibility. Even the reply of respondent No. 1 is indicating to the effect that he was apprised of certain facts and the line of action. This Court is not convinced that the Income Tax Authorities are doing any act maliciously in order to defame the petitioner Shri K.K. Jerath. Rather he wants to take undue advantage of the situation by highlighting certain allegations which he failed to substantiate. In the present case in the opinion of this Court, the Investigating Agency should be given free hand to interrogate the entire matter, which requires thorough scrutiny and investigation. There are reasonable chances that the petitioners, if released on bail might try to tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly, creating further hurdles for the investigation. The petitions cannot succeed by making offer that the petitioners are ready to join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. Rather this Court is of the view that if the petitioners are allowed to remain on bail, the investigation will simply become a ritual. Such situation has already been disapproved by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon L.K. Advani v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1997 Crl. L.J. 2559. In my opinion, the said judgment relied upon by Shri R.S. Ghai, is not relevant to the facts in hand. It was a case where the Hon''ble Delhi High Court was considering the point whether petitioner Shri L.K. Advani was rightly chargesheeted or not.

I have considered the totality of the circumstances of the present case and I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out a special case for the grant of anticipatory bail.

Resultantly, both the petitions are hereby dismissed.

Copy of the order be given dasti.

Petitions dismissed.