Parkash Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J. (Oral)

Heard. According to the prosecution case when Parkash SinghInspector Punsup was the incharge of the stock of wheat of the Punsup for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993, shortage of wheat was detected on physical verification. Similarly, shortage of wheat was detected when Baljit SinghInspector Punsup was the incharge of the stock of wheat of the Punsup for the years 19931994. The value of these two shortages was to the tune of Rs. 7,78,482.25. There was one Emanual alias Surinder who according to the prosecution was also equal accomplice with them in the misappropriation of wheat to the tune of Rs. 7,78,482.25. Both the applicants have been in custody since 11.8.1997. They are now in judicial lock up. As to whether there is any shortage of wheat that depends upon the documentary proof. No useful purpose would be served by keeping them in custody.

In Ranu Ghoshpetitioner v. State (CBI)respondent, 1997(1) RCR 391 Delhi High Court held that at the stage of considering application for grant of bail, the Court is not required to go into the detailed examination of evidence and prejudge the case and for that exhaustive going into the merits of the case is not required. The Court before granting bail in cases involving nonbailable offences, is to take into consideration, matters such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of public or the State and similar other considerations.

In this case the misappropriation relates to the period 19911992, 199293 and 199394. Both the petitioners are employed in Punsup. As such there is no likelihood of their fleeing from the trial.

Keeping in view that they have been in custody since 11.8.1997 and the trial might take long time, it is not deemed appropriate that they should face trial while in custody. It is ordered that they shall be admitted to bail with one surety of the amount of Rs. one lac together with the personal bond of the said amount. The bonds shall be attested by the Special Judge, Faridkot appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.