Maninder Singh Heera vs State of Punjab

S.C. Malte, J.

The order shall dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 21294, 21137, 21305, 21309, 21404, 22210 and 22609M of 1997 as all these petitions arise out of the same FIR and for the same offence.

Petitioners in these cases were the Chairman and other subordinate Officers of Improvement Trust, Amritsar. In nutshell all the allegations are that these persons in connivance with each other had accepted the tenders without following due procedure; got executed the construction work which was of substandard, made irregular transfer of 62 plots; and other minor grievances. In respect of these allegations, an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. His report is annexed at page 32 in the file of Crl. Misc. 21294M of 1997. The enquiry report runs into 41 pages. In this report, it has been specifically observed at page 4 that none of the contractors/working agencies have enclosed receipt regarding deposit of earnest money with their tender forms. In this respect, it may be noted that an affidavit is also filed from the petitioner''s side to indicate that earnest money was duly recovered and receipts were issued to the contractors. The affidavit has not been controverted. If the acceptance of tenders have been done by flouting certain rules it is a matter of record. It is obvious that during inquiry conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner all these documents pertaining to the enquiry or investigation seems to have been taken into consideration. The enquiry report at page 16 further indicates that a visual inspection of the construction of buildings was found satisfactory. However at page 28 of the said enquiry report, he has observed that since he is not a technical hand, for further scrutiny regarding quality of construction can be had by formation a Committee comprising of an Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department. In the same enquiry report at page 28, he has further observed that allegations regarding Tata Sumo vehicle have remained unestablished.

Learned A.A.G. Punjab on the other hand has brought my attention to page 37 of the report in which it was indicated that a plot was allowed to be sold by the Chairman by completing the formalities on a single day. A scrutiny of that plot further shows that it had been confiscated by the Chairman vide his order dated 30.10.1973. Other plots were also similarly confiscated by some other orders. It is stated that there is no obvious reason available on the file. How the confiscation was annulled and sale deed executed. The learned AAG further submits that similar is the illegality in other cases of transfer and registration in respect of sale of plots. If that is a case, that is going to be a matter of record. The only question is whether detention of the petitioners would be necessary for the effective progress of the investigation. Since all the material documents necessary for spelling out the offence have been collected by the Additional Deputy Commissioner during his enquiry, there hardly is a case for detention of these persons in the custody. In view of that I find that interim anticipatory which was granted long back as 25.9.1997 deserves to be transformed into anticipatory bail. Hence anticipatory bail granted to these petitioners in FIR No. 79 dated 2.9.1997 under Section 13(1)(c), (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC, on condition that in the event of their arrest in that case each of them shall be released on executing bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. Petitioners shall, however, make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by a previous notice in writing under Section 160 Cr.P.C.