Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 490 (PNJ)

Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab

2002-05-02

NIRMAL SINGH

body2002
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 7 dated 25.3.2002 under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Phase VIII, Mohali. 2. The prosecution case is that Bhoopat Singh was working as Excise Inspector. His name was sent by the State Government to the Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) for selecting him as Member in PCS (Executive Branch). Complainant Bhoopat Singh did not receive any interview call from the Commission as such he alongwith Chander Mohan, Advocate met R.S. Sidhu, Chairman of the Commission at his office at Patiala to ascertain as to when interview call would be made. R.S. Sidhu, Chairman of the Commission told them to keep in touch with him and he would let them know when interview would be held. On 24.3.2002 Chander Mohan contacted R.S. Sidhu, Chairman of the Commission. He asked the complainant to come to City Lodge Hotel, Phase III-B-2, Mohali. Complainant alongwith Chander Mohan met R.S. Sidhu in the hotel. There he demanded Rs. 35 lacs for selecting the complainant in the PCS (Executive Branch). It was also settled that Rs. 5 lacs would be paid immediately but the remaining amount will be paid lateron but before interview. Ravinder Singh Sidhu asked the complainant and Chander Mohan Advocate to contact him on 25.3.2002 at Chandigarh when the payment of Rs. 5 lacs was to be made. The complainant was not ready to pay this amount. He contacted the Vigilance department and informed that Rs. 35 lacs have been demanded from him as illegal gratification by the Chairman of the Commission. On this a trap was laid by the Vigilance Bureau. Complainant Bhoopat Singh paid Rs. 5 lacs to the Chairman and the shadow witness gave a signal. On receipt of the signal raiding party apprehended R.S. Sidhu, Chairman of the Commission and from his possession Rs. 5 lacs were recovered which was tainted money. R.S. Sidhu named the petitioner as one of the tout who used to collect money on behalf of him for the purpose of giving appointment to the candidates for various posts in various departments in Punjab. Warrants of arrest of the petitioner has been obtained by the Vigilance bureau from Judicial Magistrate, Kharar. R.S. Sidhu named the petitioner as one of the tout who used to collect money on behalf of him for the purpose of giving appointment to the candidates for various posts in various departments in Punjab. Warrants of arrest of the petitioner has been obtained by the Vigilance bureau from Judicial Magistrate, Kharar. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved an application for pre-arrest bail before the Special Judge, Rup Nagar which was declined on 17.4.2002. Aggrieved by that order, the present petition has been moved in this Court. 3. Shri S.P. Singh, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no relation with R.S. Sidhu. He submitted that the petitioner has been named by R.S. Sidhu under pressure and coercion. He further submitted that the pre-arrest bail can even be allowed in a case where a case is made out for police remand. In support of his submission he has relied upon Gurbaksh Singh Sibia etc. v. Sarbajit Singh and another, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1632, Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1349 and Prem Parkash v. State of Haryana, 2000(1) RCR 551. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner but find the same without any substance. 5. Pre-arrest bail is not to be allowed as a matter of right. The Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibia etc. v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1632, has laid down guide-lines for granting pre-arrest bail, which reads as under : "In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, he combined effect of which must weigh with the Court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to he making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicants presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, (1962) 3 SCR 622 : (AIR 1962 SC 253) which, though was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail." 6. This Court in R.K. Ranga v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) Recent Criminal Reports 612 (P&H) has held as under :- "What should be the considerations which weigh upon the Courts while granting or refusing anticipatory bails ? This Court in R.K. Ranga v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) Recent Criminal Reports 612 (P&H) has held as under :- "What should be the considerations which weigh upon the Courts while granting or refusing anticipatory bails ? These are as under :- (i) Nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; (ii) The position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the (iii) Likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) Repetition of offence (v) Jeopoardising his own life being faced with the grim prospects of possible conviction; (vi) Tampering with witnesses; (vii) 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. It is also settled that the remedy of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy provided in law and has to be resorted to only in exceptional cases and if special grounds are made out. Thus where there was no attempt to involve the applicant in a false case with a view of disgrace him or to malign him and his conduct does not inspire confidence and the investigation is in progress, it cannot be said that special grounds have been made out for the grant of anticipatory bail. If the offence is of a serious nature and no special circumstances have been indicated or found, it will be improper on the part of the Court of Sessions or by the High Court to grant anticipatory. The above principles of law have been taken note of while deciding this application." 7. The case of the petitioner is not covered under the above-said guidelines. Furthermore, while allowing pre-arrest bail, the Court must keep a balance so the individual may be protected from unnecessary humiliation and at the same time the Court is to keep in mind that faith of the public in the administration of justice is not shaken. 8. Counsel for the petitioner while arguing the case submitted that the petitioner is a class III employee working as Pharmacist in Veterinary Department, Punjab and his wife is a primary teacher. 8. Counsel for the petitioner while arguing the case submitted that the petitioner is a class III employee working as Pharmacist in Veterinary Department, Punjab and his wife is a primary teacher. If that is so, on the face of it, it cannot be said that the petitioner is being falsely implicated to humiliate or to harass him in the eyes of the public as the petitioner is not heavy weight politician, high up bureaucrat of big industrialist or businessman. 9. Admittedly the petitioner is a Class III employee in the veterinary department so R.S. Sidhu will not name the petitioner falsely as no enmity or hostility has been alleged against R.S. Sidhu who has named the petitioner as one of his tout. The investigator has also no enmity or hostility with the petitioner, therefore, he will also not involve the petitioner falsely without any motive. 10. Bakhshish Singh has made a statement before the investigator that he want to get his son selected as Dy. S.P. in the police department who had already applied for the post. He contacted Dr. Shamsher Singh for help who got an assurance from the Chairman of the Commission R.S. Sidhu that his son would be selected on payment of Rs. 40 lacs as illegal gratification. 11. At the hearing, it was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner whether Bakhshish Singh is having any enmity with the petitioner by falsely naming him. He replied in the negative. 12. The prosecution has been able to collect sufficient evidence which shows the complicity of the petitioner in the crime that the petitioner was acting as a tout alongwith Randhir Singh Gill, Paramjit Singh and Prem Sagar who were collecting money from the candidates who want to be selected in various departments in the State of Punjab and they share the booty with accused R.S. Sidhu who was the Chairman of the Commission. 13. Taking into consideration the statement of Bakhshish Singh and also that prosecution has also been able to collect evidence that petitioner own a house in Sector-4, Panchkula and has other immoveable property which is disproportionate to the non-source of the petitioner and also taking into consideration that crores of rupees have been recovered from the lockers of R.S. Sidhu and he is having property disproportionate to his non source for which the petitioner was acting as tout. So far the proper investigation of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to know from how many candidates how much money has been collected, how much money he has shared with the Chairman of the Commission who have been selected for various posts in various departments. 14. In State Rep. by the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma, JT 1997(7) SC 651, the Apex Court has held as under :- "that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated 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 persons knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest 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 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. High Court has approached the issue as though it was considering a prayer for granting regular bail after arrest. Learned Single Judge of the High Court reminded himself of the principle that "it is well-settled that bail and not jail is a normal course." 15. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature. To elucidate the correct facts, the custodial interrogation is necessary. If pre-arrest bail is allowed and petitioner is allowed to join the investigation, it will be a mere ritual and scuttle the investigation. 16. For the reasons mentioned above, no case is made out to issue directions under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code Hence, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.