Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 153 (CHH)

Dilip Kumar Diwan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-05-15

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL

body2015
ORDER Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested on 5-4-2015 in connection with crime No. 50 of 2014 registered at Police Station A.C.B., Raipur, District Raipur (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant amassed wealth of Rs. 4,99,74.582/- disproportionate to his known source of income while working as Deputy Commissioner in the Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raipur and thereby he committed the aforesaid offence. 3. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that present applicants has not amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income as he has already supplied the information in shape of Form A-1, A-2 and A-3 with regard to check period. He would further submit that the alleged disproportionate property has already been identified by the team of Anti Corruption Bureau and he is ready and willing to furnish bail bond and he will abide by the conditions imposed upon him and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required as the property said to be disproportionate has been seized. He would further submit that filing of challan and granting sanction is likely to take time and the applicant is cooperating with the investigation and he is in jail since 5-4-2015 and no useful purpose would be served keeping him in jail, therefore, they may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposing the bail application would submit that the applicant herein is rank defaulter and is not cooperating with the investigation as he sought time on 5-4-2015 as he was to submit necessary information in shape of Form A-1, A-2 and A-3 and the matter is still under investigation and as such, present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. A close and careful perusal of the material available in the case diary of the Crime No. 50 of 2014 would show that offences under Sections 13(1)(e) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been registered against the applicant finding that he has amassed wealth of Rs. 6. A close and careful perusal of the material available in the case diary of the Crime No. 50 of 2014 would show that offences under Sections 13(1)(e) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been registered against the applicant finding that he has amassed wealth of Rs. 4,99,74,582/- disproportionate property to his known source of income and the matter is still under investigation and charge-sheet has not been filed yet & it is the case of the prosecution that the applicant is not cooperating with investigation. 7. In the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing evidence inter alia, observed as under: "5. The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest". 8. In State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar, (2012) 12 SCC 384 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that corruption is violation of human right and observed as under: "Corruption is not only a punishable offence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights' violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes". 9. Further, in the matter of Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that economic offence is a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and observed as under: "23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. 25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country". 10. Very recently, in the matter of Subramanian Swamy vs. C.B.I., (2014) 8 SCC 682 , the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) while declaring Section 6-A or the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 unconstitutional, observed as under:- "Corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the PC Act, 1988. It is difficult to justify the classification which has been made in Section 6-A because the goal of law in the PC Act, 1988 is to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand and all public servants are warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequence." And again, "Corruption is an enemy of nation and tracking down corrupt public servant, howsoever high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the PC Act, 1988. The status or position of public servant does not qualify such public servant from exemption from equal treatment. The decision making power does not segregate corrupt officers into two classes as they are common crimedoers and have to be tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation." 11. The status or position of public servant does not qualify such public servant from exemption from equal treatment. The decision making power does not segregate corrupt officers into two classes as they are common crimedoers and have to be tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation." 11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and nature and gravity of the offences investigation is in progress and further taking into consideration the conduct of the applicant in not cooperating in investigation, charge-sheet is yet to be filed, and keeping in mind the binding observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in cases of Balkrishna Dattray (supra) that, economic offences are grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and serious repercussions on the development of the country and in view of the fact that corruption is a really a human rights violation specially right to life liberty, equality and non discrimination and it is an economic obstacles to the realization of all human rights, I am of the considered opinion, prima facie, that it is not a fit case where the applicant can be released on bail. 12. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is liable to be and is hereby rejected.