Shradhesh Chandra (S. Chandra) vs State of Punjab

Alok Singh, J.—This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 10 dated 27.8.2010, under Sections 7, 13(2) of Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that Petitioner was enlarged on interim bail vide order dated 17.9.2010 and has

already been enlarged on bail by the Investigating Officer. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further states that co-accused, namely, Balraj Singh

Nehra, Assistant Garrison Engineer (SDO) has suffered disclosure statement stating that he has accepted the bribe on behalf of the Petitioner that

is why Petitioner is also implicated in the present case. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further states that prior to the incident in question

Petitioner has recommended the cases of the complainant as well as the shadow witnesses to the higher authorities for black listing, that is why to

take revenge, this false case has been planted upon the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the complainant states that two bills of Rs. 3,00,000/ and Rs. 27,000/- were pending. Complainant approached the

Petitioner accused to clear the bills and Petitioner directed him (complainant) to approach co-accused Balraj Singh Nehra, Assistant Garrison

Engineer (SDO) saying that bills shall not be cleared in this manner.

Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab, on instructions from DSP Bhupinder Singh, has fairly stated that Vigilance Bureau has not prepared list of

properties movable or immovable in the possession of the Petitioner to make out the case against the Petitioner u/s 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act. However, Vigilance Bureau wants to investigate, by way of custodial interrogation of the Petitioner, as to what are the properties

in possession of the Petitioner and what is the source to income to have these properties.

Record reveals that Petitioner was not arrested at the spot and only co-accused Balraj Singh Nehra, Assistant Garrison Engineer (SDO) was

arrested at the spot and he has already been enlarged on regular bail. As to whether Petitioner directed the complainant to go to co-accused Balraj

Singh Nehra, Assistant Garrison Engineer (SDO) for clearance of the bills or not, is a matter which can only be looked into and considered during

trial. However, custodial interrogation seems to be unjustified at this stage.

Hon�ble Apex Court in the case of ""Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharastra and Ors. 2011 (1) RCR Cri 126 has held that

irrational and indiscriminate arrest must be avoided.

Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. Order dated 17.9.2010 is made absolute, subject to

the limitations provided u/s 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is clarified that Petitioner shall participate in the investigation as

and when he is required.