Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 142 (PNJ)

Sham Lal v. State Of Punjab

2002-02-01

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Sham Lal, petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 2 dated 9.1.2002, registered under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) with Police Station-Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. 2. The present case was registered on the statement of Dwarka Dass resident of Near Chhatte Wali Gali, Amargarh, District Sangrur. Dwarka Dass claims himself to be the Secretary of M/s Krishna Gram Udyog Samiti (Regd.) Dialpur, Amargarh, District Sangrur. The aforesaid firm is having a Rice Sheller located on Amargarh-Dhuri Road. The firm was entrusted with the work of milling the rice supplied by the Food Corporation of India (for short `FCI) for the season 2001-2002. Fourteen trucks of rice had been delivered to FCI upto the date of registration of the case. In addition, two trucks loaded with rice were parked in the FCI Depot and were waiting for clearance. On 8.1.2002, the complainant went to the office of FCI at Malerkotla. He met Sukhdev Singh and Jagdish Singh, who were employed as Technical Assistants with FCI. Both of them stated to him that the rice loaded in the trucks would take much time for clearance. They suggested to him to meet Sham Lal, petitioner-accused so that the rice loaded in the trucks is cleared. Thereafter, making him to wait outside the office of Sham Lal, who was posted as Assistant Manager, F.C.I., they went to meet him. Soon after, the complainant was called in the office of Assistant Manager by Jagdish Singh, who in the presence of the Assistant Manager told him that he had talked to the Assistant Manager and that he had not paid the money in respect of trucks which had already been cleared and, therefore, these trucks would now be cleared if he makes payment of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant expressed his inability to pay the amount demanded. Upon this Sham Lal told him that if he wanted to get the trucks cleared then he had to pay Rs. 20,000/- as bribe and was asked to come on 9.1.2002 in FCI Depot at Malerkotla along with money. The complainant was also informed that he should pay the money to the person present there and his work would be done. 20,000/- as bribe and was asked to come on 9.1.2002 in FCI Depot at Malerkotla along with money. The complainant was also informed that he should pay the money to the person present there and his work would be done. Thereafter, the complainant returned to his Sheller and discussed the matter with Karnail Singh, Helper, who suggested that bribe demanded by the corrupt officials be not paid to them and the matter be reported to the Vigilance Department. Thereafter, a trap was laid and the bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to Sukhdev Singh and Jagdish Singh. Sukhdev Singh retrained Rs. 15,000/- with him and handed over th other Rs. 5,000/- to Jagdish Singh. Sukhdev Singh also represented to the complainant that out of Rs. 15,000/- a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to Sham Lal and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- shall be retained by him. Both Sukhdev Singh and Jagdish Singh were arrested at the spot. The case is still under investigation. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused while pressing for his bail, has taken several pleas. Firstly, it was contended by him that as per prosecution version, Sham Lal was not present at the time of raid and no bribe amount had been recovered from him. Secondly, that petitioner-accused had been involved in the crime at the instance of Sukhdev Singh and Jagdish Singh on account of previous animosity because the petitioner had noticed various irregularities committed by them in acceptance of the rice stock for which their explanation had been sought. Thirdly, from the report lodged, it is clearly spelled out that a concocted story of demand of Rs. 20,000/- has been put against the petitioner-accused. Fourthly, that on an earlier occasion M/s Krishna Gram Udyog Samiti, in connivance of one Zorawar Singh, Technical Assistant,. had attempted to dump certain rice with the FCI with the help and manipulation of record regarding which detailed complaint was made by him to the District Manager, FCI, Sangrur in respect of the corrupt practices being indulged by the aforesaid samiti and referred to the representation dated 26.3.2001, copy of which is Annexure-A.1. It was also pointed out by him that acting on the said representation the Assistant Manager (Administration) had ordered transfer of Zorawar Singh, Technical Assistant. Annoyed on this account the complainant wanted to take revenge from him and got him involved in this case. It was also pointed out by him that acting on the said representation the Assistant Manager (Administration) had ordered transfer of Zorawar Singh, Technical Assistant. Annoyed on this account the complainant wanted to take revenge from him and got him involved in this case. Lastly, the petitioner had no role to play in the clearance of the milling of rice of the aforesaid Samiti. 4. Opposing the submissions made, learned State counsel has stated that the petitioner-accused had asked the complainant to pay bribe for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- when he met him on 8.1.2002 in his office, therefore, he is fully linked up with the crime despite the fact that at the time of raid conducted he was not present and no amount of bribe was received by him. 5. I need not go into the merits of the respective stands taken by the parties as these have to be finally adjudicated upon during the trial of the case. It is well settled that power to grant anticipatory bail is of extra- ordinary nature and has to be exercised in exceptional cases. At the same time, while considering the prayer made the genuineness of the alleged need for police custody of the petitioner-accused for the purpose of investigation of the case has also to be examined. It is not a case, where custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused would be required to effect recovery of any document related to the reported crime. Admittedly, the petitioner was not present at the time the bribe was paid by the complainant to Sukhdev Singh and Jagdish Singh. It is not the case of the prosecution that the money had been, in fact, passed on to him. The petitioner cannot be fastened with liability for what transpired between the other two accused and the complainant on 8.1.2002 in his office. Bald allegation that the petitioner- accused is alleged to have stated to the complainant to make payment of the bribe amount to the person present in the office on 9.1.2002, as such, cannot be made a ground to deny the benefit of bail to him. 6. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances on record, I accept the bail application and order that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be admitted to bail by the Arresting Officer on his furnishing bail bound in the sum of Rs. 6. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances on record, I accept the bail application and order that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be admitted to bail by the Arresting Officer on his furnishing bail bound in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with a surety in the like amount undertaking therein to abide by the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code.