Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 621 (PNJ)

Baldev Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-06-18

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2002
Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. On 25.4.2002 an FIR No. 8 was registered with Vigilance Bureau Flying Squad-I at Mohali, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against R. Venkataratnam, IAS, Baldev Singh, Chief Engineer and others. It has been stated in FIR that one Kamalpreet Singh son of Devinder Pal Singh did not apply before the last date of submission of applications nor submitted the eligibility certificate and demand draft etc. Similarly, another candidate Vijay Kumar also did not comply with the requirements of the advertisement, but they were selected by the Committee. Thus, the committee had acted arbitrarily and illegally. The relevant part of the FIR reads as under :- ".........Kamalpreet has been selected in contravention of conditions, even the medical certificate was submitted by him on 10.1.2001 and Bank Draft was also sent after the interview, and Vijay Kumar also submitted his medical certificate on 8.1.2001 after the last date of submission of application. So, R. Vaenkataratnam, Baldev Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Kiran Dhawan has acted illegally in selecting Kamalpreet Singh, relative of Nirmal Singh Kahlon. They have committed offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 471, 120-B of IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988." 2. The petitioner Baldev Singh is the Chief Engineer and was just a member of the Committee. It is contended on his behalf that the entire matter was handled and selections made under the command of the IAS Officer and they were mere signatories to the selection and he has committed no offence. It is further contended that the principal accused Mr. Venkataratnam has been granted anticipatory bail by the District and Sessions Judge, Roop Nagar vide order dated 4.6.2002. In face of this there is no justification in declining the relief to the petitioner. It is alleged that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner nor any further investigation is called for. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the State conceded that the order of Sessions Judge in favour of Shri Venkataratnam has not been even challenged by the State and the State has accepted the said order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel at some length. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roop Nagar, declined the bail to the petitioner. 5. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the State conceded that the order of Sessions Judge in favour of Shri Venkataratnam has not been even challenged by the State and the State has accepted the said order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel at some length. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roop Nagar, declined the bail to the petitioner. 5. The bare reading of the FIR and the record produced before me does not attribute any specific role to the present petitioner. He was member of a selection committee of which Mr. Venkataratnam was the chairman. Even as per the case of the prosecution, the selection has been made by a committee. Thus it is a case of collective responsibility and violation. 6. Without commenting upon the merits of the respective contentions raised before us, and to avoid prejudice to either party to the proceedings, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail at this stage. Consequently, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner could be released unless being detained under some other offence/FIR.Petition allowed.