JUDGMENT Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J.:- Prayer made in the petition is for release of the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in case FIR No. 2 dated 2.5.2012 under Sections 420, 466, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-I, Mohali (Punjab). 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the writing sent by Balwant Singh, PPS, SP, Vigilance Bureau, Anti-crime Branch-2, Punjab, Chandigarh to the Station House Officer, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Phase-I, Punjab at Mohali. The said writing is reproduced herein-in-below:- “To The S.H.O., P.S. V.B., Ph.-1, Punjab at Mohali. An enquiry report from Housefed, Punjab dated 21.3.2012 has been received against the accused namely Shri Amarjit Gupta, Superintending Engineer, (Under suspension) and others for favour of conducting investigation after registration of the case FIR. As per the report, Housefed, Punjab had called tenders in June, 2010 for construction of 632 flats in duplex at Sector 79, Mohali. These tenders for an amount of Rs.34,18,17,665/- and Rs.38,58,72,114/- were allotted to different Firms namely M/s Manohar Lal Gupta & Company Pvt. Ltd., E.C. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Vantage Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The Technical Advisor to Hon’ble Chief Minister of Punjab had examined the estimates and the agreements of said tenders and as per his letter No.AEPB/102/F.F. dated 7.2.2010 (2011) the negligence has been found to have been committed by the Senior Engineering Staff of the Institution in the tendering process of those works. According to the report, in the departmental preliminary inquiry, it has been found that at the time of opening the tenders, the rates which were quoted by Rajinder Singh, later on, Shri Amarjit Gupta, Superintending Engineer (under suspension) having connived with the Contractor had been changed and had caused advantage of Rs.8,61,22,007/- to the Agency. According to the inflated rates, an excess payment of Rs.5,09,98,581/- has been made to the Agency upto October, 2011, which is direct loss to the Housefed and benefit of the same amount to the Agency. Shri Amarjit Gupta, Superintending Engineer, Housefed, Punjab having connived with Nishi Gupta, Director M/s Manohar Lal Gupta & Co. According to the inflated rates, an excess payment of Rs.5,09,98,581/- has been made to the Agency upto October, 2011, which is direct loss to the Housefed and benefit of the same amount to the Agency. Shri Amarjit Gupta, Superintending Engineer, Housefed, Punjab having connived with Nishi Gupta, Director M/s Manohar Lal Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd., 103-C, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, Hardeep Singh, Director M/s E.C. Construction Pvt. Ltd., 814, Shakuntla Building, Nehru Place, Delhi and Vijay Goel, Director, M/s Vantage Infratech Pvt. Ltd., 2484/8, 3rd Floor, Bandapura, Karol Bagh, Delhi, while misusing his official position, by preparing fake documents, deceitfully and fraudulently have caused loss to the tune of crores of rupees to Housefed. By doing so, Shri Amarjit Gupta, Superintending Engineer (under suspension), Housefed, Punjab r/o H.No. 48, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh. Nishi Gupta, Director M/s Manohar Lal Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd, 103-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, Hardeep Singh, Director M/s E.C. Construction Pvt. Ltd., 814, Shankuntla Building, Nehru Place, Delhi and Vijay Goel, Director, M/s Vantage Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 2484/8, 3rd Floor, Bandapura, Karol Bagh, Delhi alongwith other officers/officials and other who were involved in the conspiracy had committed an offence punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 471, 120-B IPC, Section 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) PC Act, 1988. Hence, the writing is being sent through H.C. Dhir Singh 550/RPR, for registration of case FIR under the above said Sections. After registration of the case FIR, the original writing alongwith the copy of FIR may be sent to the undersigned. I shall conduct the investigations personally. Today Sd/-Balwant Singh, PPS, o/o V.B. A.C. Branch-2, S.P. V.B.A.C. Branch, Punjab, Chandigarh Punjab, Chandigarh At 11.30 a.m. 2.5.2012" 3. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) for the grant of anticipatory bail but the said application was dismissed vide order dated 18.5.2012. 4. The present petition came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 24.5.2012, when notice was issued to Advocate General, Punjab and interim bail granted to him, subject to his joining investigation. 4. The present petition came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 24.5.2012, when notice was issued to Advocate General, Punjab and interim bail granted to him, subject to his joining investigation. While issuing notice, the Court recorded the stand of the petitioner as under :- “Contends that though contract was taken by joint venture consisting of M/s Manohar Lal Gupta and Company Private Limited in which petitioner is a Managing Director, M/s E.C. Constructions Private Limited and M/s Vantage Infratech Private Limited, Managing Director of whom is coaccused Vijay Goel and however, since the very beginning, Vijay Goel was authorized by all the three companies to do all the acts on behalf of the companies regarding the tender and he was to submit all the papers, sign agreements etc. on behalf of all the three companies with HOUSEFED. It is further submitted that in fact tender form was also signed by him as authorized person on behalf of all the three companies. It is further submitted that as work could not be started in time, there were reminder letters from the HOUSEFED in this direction to the joint venture and however, before the work could be started, company of present petitioner had withdrawn from the said work and even the other company i.e. M/s E.C. Constructions Private Limited had also withdrawn and M/s Vantage Infratech Private Limited alone was allowed to execute this work. A letter in this regard was written to HOUSEFED which is annexure P-14 and the same was duly acknowledged vide annexure P-15 by the HOUSEFED which was sent to all the three companies and it was mentioned in the said letter by Superintending Engineer on behalf of HOUSEFED that only M/s Vantage Infratech Private Limited was working in the said project and other companies were having no concern in any respect with the said project. It is further submitted that however, in the papers joint venture remained as tender was given to the joint venture. It is further submitted that thereafter the work was started by M/s Vantage Infratech Private Limited in January, 2011 after petitioner’s company had withdrawn. It has been further submitted that all the payments have been received by co-accused Vijay Goel and nothing has been received by the present petitioner. It is further submitted that thereafter the work was started by M/s Vantage Infratech Private Limited in January, 2011 after petitioner’s company had withdrawn. It has been further submitted that all the payments have been received by co-accused Vijay Goel and nothing has been received by the present petitioner. It has been further submitted that present complaint was filed in September, 2011 i.e. much after the petitioner had withdrawn from this joint venture. Hence, it is contended that fraud, if any, has been committed by coaccused Vijay Goel in connivance with officials/officers of HOUSEFED and the present petitioner has been implicated as an accused merely because he is Managing Director of a company which was part of a joint venture in whose favour tender was accepted by HOUSEFED, whereas everything was done by co-accused Vijay Goel who has already been arrested. Further contends that moreover, the present case is based on documentary evidence which are in the possession of Investigating Officer or the same can be obtained from HOUSEFED or from Vijay Goel or from Bank and hence, custodial interrogation of petitioner may not be necessary.” 5. When the petition came up for hearing on 23.7.2013, learned State counsel, after obtaining instructions from DSP Prithi Pal Singh, Vigilance Bureau informed the Court that though the petitioner had joined the investigation but was not co-operating with the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner also informed the Court that Amarjit Gupta, Superintending Engineer had moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for the grant of anticipatory bail, which petition of his was coming up for consideration on 30.8.2013. On 18.2.2014, learned counsel representing the petitioner informed the Court that aforementioned Amarjit Gupta had since been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.2.2014. He, however, requested for an adjournment for producing the copy of the said order. Keeping in view the same, the hearing was adjourned for today. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of the order dated 17.2.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said order is reproduced here-in-below:- “Heard. Leave granted. The High Court has declined anticipatory bail to the appellant in FIR No.2 dated 02.05.2012 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said order is reproduced here-in-below:- “Heard. Leave granted. The High Court has declined anticipatory bail to the appellant in FIR No.2 dated 02.05.2012 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was at the relevant point of time serving as a Superintending Engineer in House-fed Punjab. When the matter came up before us on 27.6.2012, we granted interim bail to the appellant subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. The order passed by this Court stipulated certain conditions including the condition that the appellant shall continue to cooperate with the Investigating Agency and keep the Investigating Officer informed about change if any of his residential address. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that ever since the order aforementioned, the appellant has been visiting the police station concerned on his own and offering to lend whatever assistance is required to complete the investigation. He has in that regard drawn our attention to para (ee) of his rejoinder affidavit. He submits that the Investigating Officer has neither served any questionnaire upon the appellant after 7.3.2013 nor summoned him in connection with the ongoing investigation. He further states that in view of the above, there is no use of keeping the present appeal pending in this Court which can be disposed of by making the interim arrangement already directed, absolute. Mr. Ajay Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, argued that the case involves a loss of over Rupees nine crores to the House-fed Punjab. He submits that the appellant has not been cooperating with the ongoing investigation and has not joined the process although required by this Court to do so. He is however, unable to refer to any notice or communication sent to the appellant in connection with the investigation asking the appellant to attend the police station or to lend any information or assistance to the investigating agency. In the circumstances, therefore, we see no reason why the interim order passed by us should not be made absolute. He is however, unable to refer to any notice or communication sent to the appellant in connection with the investigation asking the appellant to attend the police station or to lend any information or assistance to the investigating agency. In the circumstances, therefore, we see no reason why the interim order passed by us should not be made absolute. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and make out order dated 27.6.2012 granting interim bail to the appellant absolute. The appellant shall now appear before the Investigating Officer on 3.3.2014 and on such other dates as the Investigating Officer may direct him to appear in connection with the investigation. In case the appellant fails to comply with this direction, the respondent-State shall be free to move an application for cancelling of the bail granted to the appellant. We, further direct that the other two conditions viz., the appellant shall surrender his passport to the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate and he shall not leave the country without the permission of the court, shall continue to remain operative, pending completion of the investigation and filing of a charge-sheet if any.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when called. He was also handed over a questionnaire, which he had answered. Still, the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when required. Therefore, the petitioner be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. 8. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner has caused a huge loss to the tune of Rs.861.33 lacs to the HOUSEFED as well as the general public. Therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain about the details and names of the beneficiaries as well as the forged work experience produced by him. Further, though the petitioner has joined the investigation a number of times yet he has not lent full co-operation to the same. 9. Having heard counsel for the parties and going through the record of the petition, including the reply as well as the rejoinder, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. 10. Resultantly, the petition is accepted and the ad interim order dated 24.5.2012 is made absolute. 11. 9. Having heard counsel for the parties and going through the record of the petition, including the reply as well as the rejoinder, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. 10. Resultantly, the petition is accepted and the ad interim order dated 24.5.2012 is made absolute. 11. However, as and when the Investigating Agency requires the presence of the petitioner for investigation, he shall appear in connection with the same. In case, he fails to comply with the directions, the respondent-State would be free to move an application for cancellation of the bail granted to him. The petitioner shall also surrender his passport before the Ilaqa Magistrate. He shall also not leave the country without permission of the Court. He shall extend all possible assistance for the completion of the investigation and filing of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., if any. --------------------