JUDGMENT : A.B. Chaudhari, J. By this common order, all the above noted six petitions would be disposed of. 2. In these petitions for anticipatory bail, the subject matter is FIR No.10 dated 17.08.2017, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad I, Punjab, Mohali, by Shr. Varinder Singh Brar, PPS, Assistant Inspector General of Police, Vigilance Bureau, F.S.-I, Punjab, Chandigarh against eight accused shown in column No.7 in the FIR. 3. The sum and substance of the FIR in question is that during the period of about last 7/8 years, higher authorities in the Punjab Government, Engineers from Irrigation Department and other officers by misusing their official position/power connived with Gurinder Singh contractor and indulged into allocation of works worth Rs. 1,000/- crores to the said contractor alone that too on the rates more than 50% of the departmental rates. The object of e-tendering was to maintain mutual secrecy in the Department and the bidders but the officers of the Department concerned, Engineers and all those, by using their official power hatched criminal conspiracy with the said contractor and gave rise to the total fraud causing severe loss to the Government of Punjab. It is stated that pre-bid meeting was made essential for allocation of major job works so that all the bidders in the field be introduced to each other and their mutual deals be got struck down and the job work may be allocated to Gurinder Singh contractor on his desired rates by forming a cartel. In a major contract for laying if pipes in water logged area, rules were violated in order to sideline other A-1 Class contractors on panel of the Department in order to throw them out of the competition and as such, the tender and its terms and conditions were tailor-made by keeping in view and mind the experience and annual turn-over of Gurinder Singh contractor so that the said contractor alone who would be successful in getting all the works. The conspiracy was made in such a manner that finally the said contractor would alone be the successful bidder that too at higher rates, thereby causing unjust enrichment to the contractor and causing loss to the Government of Punjab. The conspiracy was made in such a manner that finally the said contractor would alone be the successful bidder that too at higher rates, thereby causing unjust enrichment to the contractor and causing loss to the Government of Punjab. The officers of the Department had hatched plan to allocate even small amounted works to Gurinder Singh contractor by clubbing into single. Consequently, works in far off places in various districts and divisions were deliberately clubbed to make one big amounted tender with a pre-planned strategy to allocate the entire works to Gurinder Singh contractor that too on higher rates. In some of the tenders of works having DNIT, the accused persons had played trick deliberately by not mentioning the actual work, quantum of work so also the required technical specifications as a result of which, the possible proposed contractors who could have participated were deprived of the opportunity of knowing the details of DNIT and could not participate. All that was done with a view to ensure allocation of works to Gurinder Singh contractor alone. The net result of the entire unholy activities on the part of the accused persons was that Gurinder Singh contractor whose annual turn-over was only Rs. 4.74 crores in the year 2006-2007 suddenly increased to Rs. 300 crores in 2016-2017 without any justification whatsoever. That is substantiated by the fact that Gurinder Singh contractor gained countless movable and immovable properties from the illegal income received as a result of frauds, forgery etc. All the eight accused persons including the said contractor have acted in collusion with a view to have wrongful gain to them and cause wrongful loss to the Government of Punjab. 4. The Water Drainage Administration and Kandi Administration of Irrigation Department did not provide any information regarding funds received from the Centre in previous years despite the same was sought repeatedly, thereby showing total non-cooperation during investigation. Most of the works for which funds were received from Centre in the Water Drainage Administration of Irrigation Department were deliberately allotted to Gurinder Singh contractor by hatching conspiracy. During 2014-2015, job work was Rs. 200 crores out of total project of Rs. 350 crores including the projects belonging to water logged area that was allotted to the said contractor with an average rate @ 10% above than CSR+SP and the remaining small work allocated to other contractors on CSR+SP or lesser rates. 5. During 2014-2015, job work was Rs. 200 crores out of total project of Rs. 350 crores including the projects belonging to water logged area that was allotted to the said contractor with an average rate @ 10% above than CSR+SP and the remaining small work allocated to other contractors on CSR+SP or lesser rates. 5. Executive Engineer-Gulshan Nagpal was in-charge when two works about Rs. 8 crores and Rs. 5.5 crores in 2011-2012 were allocated to the said contractor. At that time, DNIT did not provide for any quantum of the job works or technical specifications which were done deliberately to favour the said contractor. In both the said works, conditions of experience in approved Standard Bidding Document (SBD) as per CVC guidelines were deliberately moulded and tailor made in order to suit Gurinder Singh contractor. In that behalf, condition for experience of similar job work value not less than 80%was illegally changed and in its place experience of work of value not less than 35% was substituted and the reason was that the said contractor was having only that experience. The attendance in pre-bid meeting was made essential in clear violation of SBD with an intention to know the final mutual deal of contractors by violating the mutual secrecy. As a result of this conspiracy, in pre-bid meeting for the said two works, finally only Gurinder Singh contractor stood left as a single bidder and then he took full advantage of siphoning out the money of the Government. Not only that the experience certificate of the contractor indicate that he had done the job works worth Rs. 13.85 crores and that he had excavated 5 lakh cubic earth work in one month, which was ultimately found to be false and incorrect as per bills and records. However, the said contractor made full use of the said certificate to his benefit. 6. Another major project of the Division under Mr. Gulshan Nagpal Executive Engineer was allocated to the said contractor. Mr. Nagpal clubbed the work in such a manner that all other major contractors except Gurinder Singh contractor became ineligible as they could not meet with conditions of works, ratio, annual turnover in DNIT, experience etc. and as such, single tender was made to Rs. 39.86 crores and the contractor used the experience of such work value of Rs. 40 crores in order to bag the said major contract. Mr. and as such, single tender was made to Rs. 39.86 crores and the contractor used the experience of such work value of Rs. 40 crores in order to bag the said major contract. Mr. Gulshan Nagpal, Executive Engineer, Mr. Paramjit Singh Ghumman, Superintending Engineer, Gurdev Singh Sian, Chief Engineer, were entrusted the work, though, such villages (22 villages) were far away situated and under various divisional offices, but since there was a calculated move to allot the work only to Gurinder Singh contractor, a major tender worth Rs. 75 crores was floated. However, in the tender documents, no quantum of work was mentioned so also the technical specifications were not clearly stated and in place of giving name of villages in the column of place of work, District Muktsar, Faridkot and Fazilka were only mentioned with a view to make suppression. As a result of this conspiracy, keeping the discrepancies, the other contractors were deprived of participation. In violation of SBD documents, the attendance was made compulsory at pre-bid meeting with a specific intention and mens rea to know the details about other prospective bidders. The officers had taken contradictory decisions in violation of CVC and SBD so also the instructions of the committee and so also to know the status of the contractors in relation to particular experience of work. The Tender Overseeing Committee (TOC) had, on 13.02.2014, enlisted conditions regarding the same related projects, but after 7 months, on 30.09.2014 when the actual tender was to be invited for Rs. 75 crores, the terms and conditions and in particular condition No.3 were totally ignored from the said memo dated 13.02.2014. Mr. Gurdev Singh Sian, Chief Engineer, the signatory on his own acted in connivance with the said contractor and subordinate officers and changed the terms and conditions in order to suit the capacity and experience of that contractor. The condition regarding 80% costs of similar work was changed to 50% costs, bringing the experience to Rs. 38 crores instead of Rs. 60 crores contrary to condition fixed by the Committee, CVC, with a view to bring only that contractor. Because of the said express meet of the officers and the contractor's conspiracy, the allocation was done at 17% rates exceeding CSR+SP which works out to Rs. 14 crores increase and that is the straight financial loss to the Government of Punjab. Another Executive Engineer, Mr. Because of the said express meet of the officers and the contractor's conspiracy, the allocation was done at 17% rates exceeding CSR+SP which works out to Rs. 14 crores increase and that is the straight financial loss to the Government of Punjab. Another Executive Engineer, Mr. Bajrang Lal Singla joined hands with the said contractor along with other officers in relation to the costs of pipes and in the process, the Government of Punjab was put to huge loss in the matter of purchase of pipes that is more than 2.5 times of the actual market price. The works worth Rs. 100 crores of Kandi Canal Administration under Harvinder Singh and worth Rs. 100 crores belonging to Shahpur Kandi Hydel channel also given to him in the same manner inasmuch as tailor-made terms and conditions were inserted by the officers in connivance with the said contractor resulting into ineligibility of the other contractors of Punjab State leaving Gurinder Singh contractor alone as eligible. All that was done by breaching the secrecy of tendering and it is astonishing to note that difference of Rs. 1 only was shown in the financial bids and in not one, but in number of contracts. 7. The internal vigilance Administration of the Department played a murky role and its role is wholly suspicious obviously to favour the contractor and protect these officers and to suppress the sins committed by all of them together in causing huge loss to the Government of Punjab. Similarly is the case with the work of Banur Wier. 8. After lodgment of the FIR, investigation started. All the petitioners who have been named in the FIR have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. This Court issued notices to the respondents and respondents accordingly, filed their respective detailed replies, documents etc. The petitioners were also given opportunity to file rejoinders etc. which they have accordingly, filed along with documents. The parties have been given full opportunity to produce all the documents and affidavits they desired. Hearing commenced before this Court for examination of each case on its own merits. The common facts have also been noted down along with relevant documents. CRM-M-36763 of 2017-Gurdev Singh Syan 9. Mr. R.S. Rai, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-36763 of 2017) made the following submissions:- (i) The petitioner was working as Chief Engineer Drainage only from 10.02.2014 to 31.03.2015. The common facts have also been noted down along with relevant documents. CRM-M-36763 of 2017-Gurdev Singh Syan 9. Mr. R.S. Rai, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-36763 of 2017) made the following submissions:- (i) The petitioner was working as Chief Engineer Drainage only from 10.02.2014 to 31.03.2015. The project in question had actually started after his retirement from the Government service. The project, namely to clear the water logging in 22 villages in District Muktsar, was allotted to contractor-Gurinder Singh after the entire procedure was scrupulously followed and the said contractor having been found to be the only successful bidder. The petitioner alone was not the authority to undertake the process of tendering and thereafter, allocating the works to the said contractor. On the contrary, senior and higher officers were involved at different stages in the matter of process of tendering for the said work falling under the Irrigation Department of Government of Punjab. On 23.09.2014, a meeting in that connection was presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Punjab and specific decision was taken with regard to the works pertaining to drainage Department and the issue regarding work of Shahpur Kandi drainage was deliberated and it was decided that the works could be got executed by calling the tenders with a condition that the executing agencies/contractors would, in addition, do the maintenance work for the period of 5 years after completion of the work. Thus, the highest authority of the State, namely Chief Minister had issued special directions in relation to the said work and the petitioner had hardly any role to play; (ii) The work completed by the said contractor has not been found fault with nor there is any remote allegation about any lack of supervision or as the case may be on the part of the petitioner or the Department as such in the matter of completion or execution of work. Even the condition regarding free maintenance for 5 years would continue to operate till the end of 5 years. The estimated value of Rs. 75 crores went upto Rs. 115 crores due to escalation, but then, the present petitioner had nothing to do with the said part of escalation. Even the condition regarding free maintenance for 5 years would continue to operate till the end of 5 years. The estimated value of Rs. 75 crores went upto Rs. 115 crores due to escalation, but then, the present petitioner had nothing to do with the said part of escalation. The nature of the work that was allocated was obviously of the Irrigation Department and therefore, it is wrong to say that laying down the pipes for pumping out the water logged area would not be the work of the Irrigation Department. The total area for which the project was meant to benefit was huge. At any rate, it is not even the case of the prosecution that by payment of bribe or as the case may be to the petitioner or others or for any extraneous consideration, the contract came to be awarded to the said contractor; (iii) In so far as the principal allegation made by the prosecution about the purchase rate for the pipes required for the purpose of execution of the said contract, the petitioner can hardly be roped in looking to his limited role as Chief Engineer. As per the procedure, the quotations were obtained by four Executive Engineers. The verification of the said quotations was duly made by the concerned Superintending Engineers. Both the Executive Engineers as well as Superintending Engineers had after verification of the quotations certified about it and in token thereof have also signed the certificate about the genuineness of the quotations and the rates therein and a certificate is also filed on record. The role of the petitioner was to accept the said certificate and he having been satisfied about the genuineness of the quotations obtained and certified by four Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineers, no act of mala fide can be attributed to him much less any criminal angle could be given colour by the State; (iv) With reference to Annexure R-16 with the reply, he submitted that the petitioner had given reply on 28.10.2014 to the letter dated 27.10.2014 (Annexure R-16) that subject in question was already at Sr. No.3, which could be checked and therefore, the allegations levelled in Annexure R-16 were factually incorrect. No.3, which could be checked and therefore, the allegations levelled in Annexure R-16 were factually incorrect. The Advisor did not counter the letter/reply dated 28.10.2014 of the petitioner; (v) The allegation that 17 crores was inflated price is factually baseless and cannot be even prima facie accepted; (vi) In so far as the requirement of 80% in the matter of eligibility condition is concerned, there is a clause empowering the authority to bring down the requirement of 80% since the same made no difference, but on the contrary more number of participants had participated in the tender process. It is, therefore, wrong to say that there was any move to favour the contractor as alleged by the prosecution; (vii) The submission made by the State that the term 'similar' in relation to the provision of eligibility was omitted is not correct. The dictionary meaning of 'similar' has been referred to by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as partial resemblance only or resemblance, while the meaning of 'identical' is used to describe a thing that is the same as something else in all respects and doing the same or exactly alike or exactly the same"; (viii) He then submitted that the entire prosecution allegations if seen carefully will show that there is no specific role attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner has retired from service and pursuant to the interim order made by this Court is still ready and willing to join investigation but the prosecution is not interested in asking the petitioner to join investigation but to put him under arrest as the change of Government in the State of Punjab has led to the lodgment of FIR in question and the prosecution agency wants to take revenge against the petitioner and others. He relied on the decision in the case of Siddharam Satilingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011(1) RCR(Criminal) 126, Paras 96 and 122 thereof and prayed for confirmation of the interim order made by this Court. CRM-M-36230 of 2017-Bajrang Lal Singla and CRM-M-37244 of 2017-Gulshan Nagpal 10. Mr. He relied on the decision in the case of Siddharam Satilingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011(1) RCR(Criminal) 126, Paras 96 and 122 thereof and prayed for confirmation of the interim order made by this Court. CRM-M-36230 of 2017-Bajrang Lal Singla and CRM-M-37244 of 2017-Gulshan Nagpal 10. Mr. J.S. Bedi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners (in CRM-M-36230 of 2017 and CRM-M-37244 of 2017) made the following submissions:- (i) The petitioner-Bajrang Lal Singla was working as Executive Engineer, Headquarters while the petitioner-Gulshan Nagpal was working as Executive Engineer (Field) and was posted at Giddarbaha from November 2010 to March 2014 and, thereafter, from July 2014 till date. The process of e-tendering in the subject matter was undertaken at the behest of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State of Punjab. The project related to the clearance of water logging in 22 villages in District Muktsar and the contract was ultimately allotted to the contractor Gurinder Singh. None of these two petitioners were the authority to undertake the process and on the contrary, the senior higher officers were involved at different stages in the matter of e-tendering and allotment of work in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Punjab. The Hon'ble Chief Minister in the meeting dated 23.09.2014 had ordered specific decision to be taken in relation to the Department and the follow up was accordingly, made as per the decision made by these higher authorities. Both the petitioners have nothing to do with the actual allotment of contract to the contractor Gurinder Singh. To repeat, the highest authority of the State and the other authorities had issued special directions and both the petitioners did not have any role to play much less material role except for making the clerical work of obtaining quotations and then certifying the same; (ii) In so far as the eligibility conditions of the contract in question are concerned, the same were duly seen by the higher in-charge officer and it is only thereafter, the e-tenders were opened and allotments were made. Both the petitioners did not have anything to do with the verification and applicability of the eligibility conditions imposed in the tendering documents. It is, therefore, wrong on the part of the prosecution to put any blame on the present petitioners who were not involved at that stage. Both the petitioners did not have anything to do with the verification and applicability of the eligibility conditions imposed in the tendering documents. It is, therefore, wrong on the part of the prosecution to put any blame on the present petitioners who were not involved at that stage. The allegation that the conditions in the DNIT were altered to suit the said contractor are again false and baseless inasmuch as there is no evidence to that effect against the petitioners looking to the status that was held by the petitioners. The allegation regarding consolidation of various divisions and districts to bring in one tender is again unconcerned with the present petitioners inasmuch as the decision to have a joint tender was itself taken in the aforesaid meeting that was held under the auspices of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. At any rate, the conditions in the documents could be well be amended in order to enlarge the scope of the contractors participating and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any malpractice or criminal intention on the part of any of the petitioners. The said contractor was the lowest and as such, the contract was bound to be allocated to the said contractor, which was done; (iii) The estimates for purchase of pipes from the market were to be collected by the concerned Junior Engineers and Sub-Divisional Officers by name Sudesh Kumar, Shashi Bhadara and Amar Gupta. They had collected the quotations from the market, but surprisingly, they have not been made accused in the FIR in question. The quotations collected by them were thereafter, certified by the Executive Engineer-Kulwinder Singh, Sanjiv Gupta and Pawan Kapoor after due verification and were thereafter, placed before the petitioners who were ultimately placed before the Chief Engineer who approved them. None of the Executive Engineers above stated have been made accused in the FIR. The petitioners had only verified and sent the quotations to the Chief Engineer who ultimately approved it. The prosecution has been selective in making the persons as accused in the present FIR as stated above. The persons namely Junior Engineers and Executive Engineers have not been made accused in the FIR. The action is mala fide and only because of the change in the Government. The prosecution has been selective in making the persons as accused in the present FIR as stated above. The persons namely Junior Engineers and Executive Engineers have not been made accused in the FIR. The action is mala fide and only because of the change in the Government. Inviting my attention to the replication filed by Bajrang Lal Singla, learned Senior counsel contended that the comparative chart, if carefully perused, does not indicate anything which could be said to be objectionable; (iv) In so far as the acquisition of the pipes is concerned, he submitted that rates were given by the manufacturers, namely Gwalior Polypipes Limited and Rex Polyextrusion Ltd. and after that comparative rates were prepared which were accordingly, forwarded; (v) Continuing the argument for the petitioner-Gulshan Nagpal, Mr. Bedi contended that the allegation about the clubbing of the contract into single to suit the tailor-made conditions for the contractor have no concern with the present petitioner-Gulshan Nagpal as essentially, the same was not done by the petitioner-Gulshan Nagpal. He then submitted that the allegations made by the prosecution about the receipt of amount of 16 and odd crores rupees by the contractor are wholly incorrect as the said amount was received by the contractor for number of pump houses upto 75 which were installed for the project. According to him, the said amount was not received towards maintenance for 5 years as per the tender conditions. The amounts were not received for maintenance of pipes and at any rate, the estimate itself was revised upto Rs. 115 crores by the Government from Rs. 75 crores. Mr. Bedi, then contended that in so far as the quotations obtained from Jain Pipes are concerned, the petitioners have no concern therewith as quotations were not obtained by the petitioners. The allegation about the forgery about the quotations of Jain Pipes do not relate to the petitioners; (vi) The prosecution's allegation that Gulshan Nagpal had supplied information about the contracts and also unofficially communicated the tender information to the contractor are incorrect and at any rate, the same would make no difference assuming the prosecution allegations are taken at face value. According to him, petitioner-Gulshan Nagpal cannot be accused of sharing the secret information of the Department regarding contracts and therefore, all the allegations to that effect made by the State are not substantiated. According to him, petitioner-Gulshan Nagpal cannot be accused of sharing the secret information of the Department regarding contracts and therefore, all the allegations to that effect made by the State are not substantiated. Learned Senior counsel then contended that both the petitioners have not at all been called by the prosecution agency for interrogation or for joining investigation, though, both the petitioners are ready to join investigation. The prosecution agency is not interested in interrogation but is only interested in making the arrest, which cannot be justified. He then contended that at any rate, the entire case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence, which are in their storage and therefore, custody of the petitioners is not at all required. The reason is, any disclosure made by the petitioners would obviously lead to the documentary evidence, which is in their possession. He then submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to join investigation and therefore, the interim order deserves to be confirmed. CRM-M-36133 of 2017-Harvinder Singh 11. Mr. D.S. Sobti, learned counsel for the petitioner (in CRMM- 36133 of 2017) made the following submissions:- (i) The petitioner was working as Chief Engineer with the Irrigation Department of the Government of Punjab and retired in April 2015. He was working as such from December 2010 to 30.04.2015 as Chief Engineer. The prosecution allegations pertain to Shahpur Kandi Hydel Construction Canal in the District of Pathankot. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegations about making pre-bid meeting compulsory are nowhere concerned as the said meeting was not attended by the petitioner at all. He then submitted that even otherwise, no fault can be found out with the said meeting as the object thereof was to explain the conditions to the participants and clarify the doubts, if any. At any rate, the pre-bid meeting was made compulsory by the committee and as such, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the said alleged irregularity; (ii) The petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged breach of CVC guidelines or alleged breach of conditions provided for eligibility by the contractors. He then contended that the allegations pertaining to the e-mails or calls do not relate to the petitioner at all. He then contended that the allegations pertaining to the e-mails or calls do not relate to the petitioner at all. The lowering of the eligibility conditions from 80% in fact, was made to increase the participation of the contractors and therefore, it is wrong to suggest that the same was done to favour Gurinder Singh contractor. In relation to the laying of pipes in the water logged area is concerned, the same was laid from March 2014 to April 2016 with 414 kms of the pipes. The rates of pies were collected from the open market by the concerned Executive Engineers, Superintending Engineers and Junior Engineers upon their certification about the quotations and the rates therein, the further process of approval was undertaken. The petitioner cannot be blamed, if at all there was omission on the part of the subordinate employees; (iii) Attention of this Court was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner in relation to the inquiry report (Annexure P-2) that was made, wherein, the petitioner was exonerated from the subject matter and therefore, in the wake of vigilance having exonerated the petitioner and the reply (Annexure P-17) that was given by the petitioner, there was absolutely no reason for the Government to lodge FIR against the petitioner; (iv) In so far as the alleged forgery of tender related to Jain Irrigation System Ltd. quotation is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the charge itself is false and bogus. The alleged statement of the officer of Jain Irrigation System Ltd. that he had never given the quotation is again false. If the document is carefully seen it shows that it was downloaded. It cannot have a signature as it is an attachment with the document. The rates quoted in the said quotation were never inflated. The petitioner acted bona-fidely. The State Government has made statement for Kamakar Singh for continuation of interim order for 4 weeks. The petitioner is also entitled to the relief on parity. The petitioner has not committed any offence. The petitioner is ready to join investigation, but the investigating agency is not interested in allowing him to join investigation. The petitioner acted bona-fidely. The State Government has made statement for Kamakar Singh for continuation of interim order for 4 weeks. The petitioner is also entitled to the relief on parity. The petitioner has not committed any offence. The petitioner is ready to join investigation, but the investigating agency is not interested in allowing him to join investigation. Since after the interim order was passed by this Court granting ad interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner was never called for interrogation, which itself shows that the agency is not at all serious about the investigation, but it is out of revenge, the petitioner is being hounded. The petitioner is still ready and willing to join investigation. Hence, interim order made by this Court needs to be made absolute by confirming the interim order. CRM-M-36999 of 2017-Vimal Sharma 12. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-36999 of 2017) made the following submissions:- (i) The petitioner-Vimal Sharma was actually posted as Supervisor at Hoshiarpur and was never posted at Chandigarh where all the activities in relation to the alleged allegations in the FIR have been made. The petitioner is nowhere concerned with the alleged crime in question as he is a Class-III employee and did not have any capacity or status to decide the award of tender or the execution thereof. He was simply working as a Supervisor and has nothing to do with the e-tendering or allotment of tenders to the contractor. Since his Headquarters was at Hoshiarpur, he was merely supposed to supervise the work being undertaken at the project places; (ii) The allegation that he had repeated talks with the said contractor and his employee Rakesh are of no consequence as the petitioner being a supervisor was bound to interact with them in the matter of execution of the work for numbers of years. There is nothing wrong even if the petitioner had made calls or received calls from the said contractor or his employee Rakesh. The statement that the petitioner had never worked made in the application for anticipatory bail before the trial Court need not be viewed as any evidence of complicity of the petitioner as the same could be out of poor drafting of the application. The statement that the petitioner had never worked made in the application for anticipatory bail before the trial Court need not be viewed as any evidence of complicity of the petitioner as the same could be out of poor drafting of the application. Nevertheless this Court is entitled to find out the real intention in the matter rather than giving importance to a statement made in the application for anticipatory bail before the trial Court. He, then submitted that the petitioner being a Class-III employee should not be harassed. The petitioner is ready to join investigation. However, the investigating machinery has not interrogated the petitioner nor is ready to join him in the investigation. Therefore, the interim order made in favour of the petitioner deserves to be confirmed as the petitioner has committed no crime he being a Class-III employee. He, therefore, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. CRM-M-37135 of 2017-Gurinder Singh 13. The petitioner-Gurinder Singh is the contractor who seeks anticipatory bail in FIR in question. At the outset, there is a preliminary objection raised by Mr. Atul Nanda, learned Advocate General, Punjab stating that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CRM-M-28263 of 2017, decided on 09.08.2017. That petition was dismissed by this Court for the reasons stated in the said order. Referring to the reasons recorded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the said order, he submitted that the Court accepted the submission made by the State that in case, prayer for 7 days notice was allowed, the petitioner would not cooperate with the inquiry officer, which would hamper the inquiry/investigation. According to the learned Advocate General, since the order was not challenged in the higher Court, the said finding would bind this Court and consequently, the present petition for anticipatory bail would not be maintainable. He also contended that the factum of filing of the petition and the said order has not been disclosed in the present petition and therefore, there is a suppression which ought to result into dismissal. He cited several decisions. Per contra, Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-Gurinder Singh submitted that the order by the Coordinate Bench of this Court was made in a petition in which relief was sought for 7 days prior notice and admittedly, at that stage, no FIR was registered. He cited several decisions. Per contra, Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-Gurinder Singh submitted that the order by the Coordinate Bench of this Court was made in a petition in which relief was sought for 7 days prior notice and admittedly, at that stage, no FIR was registered. He, further submitted that the finding is that if 7 days prior notice was permitted, the petitioner would not cooperate with the inquiry officer. That is not relevant to the present matter. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties on the preliminary objections raised by the learned Advocate General and upon perusal of the said order dated 09.08.2017 and the nature of the said petition, at the outset, I find that at that stage, no FIR was registered and the petition was limited to claiming 7 days prior notice before arresting him. As against that the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail upon registration of the FIR, namely FIR No.10 dated 17.08.2017. I, therefore, find that the preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate General cannot be accepted. The non-reference to the said petition and the order dated 09.08.2017 made by this Court, in the present petition, consequently would make no difference and would not amount to suppression of material facts. None of the cited decisions are therefore, relevant. Hence, this Court proceeds to deal with these matters on merits. 15. Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-37135 of 2017) made the following submissions:- (i) The FIR in question lodged by the State of Punjab is out and out an exercise of mala fide nature and because of the change in the Government in Punjab. The petitioner-contractor has been targeted merely because he worked as a Contractor during the regime of the earlier Government. The political fight between the earlier Government and the present Government should not result into harassment to the present petitioner who has been working as a Contractor without any blemish. There is no complaint about the quality of his work even in the present FIR and therefore, the allegations made by the prosecution are only on the basis of figment of imagination. There is no complaint about the quality of his work even in the present FIR and therefore, the allegations made by the prosecution are only on the basis of figment of imagination. According to him, the persons who have been made accused including the present petitioner in the FIR have been selectively made and, though, other persons are also allegedly involved in the works, many of them have not been made accused in the present FIR. No expert committee was ever constituted to find out the quality of the work done. Accountant General had made an audit, but there is no objection made about payment/excess payment or any criminality in the tendering or execution of work or regarding payment made to the contractor. The State has not taken any steps to blacklist the contractor. The substance of the allegations made in the FIR mostly pertain to civil wrong and no criminality as such is involved; (ii) Learned Senior counsel then contended that from 2007 to 2017 for the last 10 years, the petitioner-contractor was awarded almost 150 works, which he completed and out of them, 9 works have been picked up for the present actions; (iii) The Special Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab in fact, held an inquiry in the matter and had made recommendation, on 26.05.2017 that everything was inquired into and no abnormal, irregular or criminal act was found in the contracts in respect of which FIR has been lodged. Despite the said inquiry having been held and finding recorded by the Special Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, the present FIR came to be lodged only out of spite; (iv) In so far as the process of award of contracts under the tenders are concerned, the entire procedure was transparently followed, namely of e-tendering and the lowest bidder, namely the petitioner was found to be eligible contractor for the benefit of the State and accordingly, contracts were awarded to the petitioner as per CSR/Departmental rates and CVC guidelines in the matter. The last CSR was revised in the year 2014. There is no allegation about any excess payment qua the petitioner. In so far as the pipes required for laying under the ground for making way for the water logged area is concerned, the petitioner-contractor had purchased pipes from the Government, which were lying with the Government, worth Rs. The last CSR was revised in the year 2014. There is no allegation about any excess payment qua the petitioner. In so far as the pipes required for laying under the ground for making way for the water logged area is concerned, the petitioner-contractor had purchased pipes from the Government, which were lying with the Government, worth Rs. 1 crores and it is not that, pipes which were suitable were not utilized. Large numbers of pipes were in dilapidated condition as stated in the letter itself and obviously, such pipes could not have been utilized for laying under the ground which could have spoiled the quality of the work; (v) The petitioner was fully eligible to bid for the tender and the allegation about the tailor-made conditions by the officers of the Department are all false and baseless. Similarly the allegations about the clubbing of the contracts into single for allegedly benefiting the petitioner-contractor are also false and misleading. On the contrary as ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, joint common tender was the method to be adopted for tendering; (vi) The allegations that pre-bid meetings could not have been held, does not per se result into criminal liability as such. At any rate, pre-bid meetings were for the benefit of the State and for explaining to the contractors participating in the process. The conditions in the tender documents could be modified or deleted and there was no straight jacket formula as such even by CVC; (vii) The allegations by the State that heavy cash was withdrawn in April 2017 in the sum of almost Rs. 61 crores from the Bank have no relevance whatsoever in the present matter. The allegations that e-bid can also be managed are again baseless and making a single bid is no act of criminality for which anybody could be prosecuted in the manner that is being sought to be done. The exchange of e-mails with the officers is an act in the routine course and nothing suspicious can be said about it. The allegations that e-bid can also be managed are again baseless and making a single bid is no act of criminality for which anybody could be prosecuted in the manner that is being sought to be done. The exchange of e-mails with the officers is an act in the routine course and nothing suspicious can be said about it. Even assuming as per the allegations any excess amount was claimed or paid to the contractor that by itself would not lead to any criminality and alternative remedy could be adopted rather than criminal investigation; (viii) Learned Senior counsel then contended that even the petitioner had given several items at very lower rates and therefore, it cannot be said looking to the nature of business transactions that there was any criminal conspiracy as alleged; (ix) In so far as the price of pipes is concerned, the same is because of repeated change in the market conditions and the rising prices of 'Rasin', which is raw material for manufacturing of pipes. The petitioner is ready to join investigation but the investigating agency has not at all bothered to call the petitioner for investigation. The investigating agency does not want to investigate in real sense but wants the petitioner arrested. That is the only object for which the opposition is being made by the State. The custody of the petitioner as such is not at all necessary all the more so because entire documentary evidence is with the State and its machinery. Finally, Mr. Cheema prayed for confirmation of ad interim order made by this Court. ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT-STATE-LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL, PUNJAB 16. Mr. Atul Nanda, learned Advocate General for Punjab addressed his arguments in reply to all the above petitions. He made following submissions:- (i) Merely because this Court had made an interim orders granting ad interim anticipatory bail on the first date of hearing, it cannot be said that the petitioners can be allowed to take advantage thereof at the time of final adjudication. The ad interim orders were opposed by him, but then there was no material before the Court on the very first date on affidavit from the State of Punjab and therefore, in the absence of any reply/affidavit, this Court had made ad interim orders. The ad interim orders were opposed by him, but then there was no material before the Court on the very first date on affidavit from the State of Punjab and therefore, in the absence of any reply/affidavit, this Court had made ad interim orders. But that does not mean that ad interim orders were made on merits of the matters and therefore, the petitioners cannot seek any advantage therefrom. He then submitted that the nature of the evidence allegedly being of documentary in the custody of the Government cannot be a ground for claiming anticipatory bail as such. Even oral evidence is required to be collected. As a matter of fact, according to him, the prosecution is yet to get large number of documents because of non-cooperation of the concerned employees including some of the petitioners also. Since enough evidence has been found at this stage, only the petitioners have been named as accused persons. The objection that others have not been named as accused persons cannot be considered as during the course of investigation, those who are found in complicity would also be made accused, but such a ground is not available to the petitioners. Similarly taking advantage of the ad interim orders without having on record any reply/affidavit of the Government and making a statement that the petitioners have not been interrogated by the investigating agency is also misconceived as according to the prosecution, without the custody of the petitioners, it is wholly impossible to make any effective and fruitful investigation as most of the evidence is in the knowledge of the petitioners namely documentary as well as oral. The information on the documents will also be required to be elicited from them which they are not going to disclose without their custodial interrogation; (ii) It is a well settled legal position that the detailed discussion of the evidence on merits in the matter of anticipatory bail should be avoided as the Court would only find out whether there is a prima facie case or not. In so far as economic offences or the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned, those offences are class by themselves and are required to be dealt with considering the fact that such offences affect the public money. In so far as economic offences or the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned, those offences are class by themselves and are required to be dealt with considering the fact that such offences affect the public money. The angle of conspiracy between the conspirators and in this case, the higher officers of the Government hand in hand with the contractor cannot be pieced together unless custodial interrogation is permitted. According to him, the existence of conspiracy is only within the knowledge of accused persons and cannot be revealed unless they are subjected to custodial interrogation. In the present case, according to him, prima facie, the state exchequer has been put to huge losses in crores but then the process of investigation is such that the quantum of the losses caused because of the corrupt practices and conspiracies can be found only when the investigation progresses with the custodial interrogation of the concerned accused persons; Broadly speaking according to learned Advocate General evidence to show that every time conditions were tailor-made to award the contract only to Gurinder Singh is prima facie proved by the prosecution. That other possible contractors who could participate were thus, forbidden by higher officers of the Irrigation Department in connivance with the contractor Gurinder Singh. The e-mails shared by Gulshan Nagpal with the contractor and his agents clearly reveal that well in advance the entire secret information about the preparation of the conditions in tender notice etc. were being monitored by the contractor Gurinder Singh. Even the DNIT of works were being drafted and finalized by the contractor Gurinder Singh along with Bajrang Lal Singla, the other accused which is evident from Annexure R-1 with the affidavit filed by the State in CRM-M-36763 of 2017. Mr. Nagpal even issued work experience certificates for the contractor fakely showing the build work capacity of the contractor. Huge violations of PWD Code Rules were made vide Paras 32 and 33 of the said affidavit. Tailor-made conditions were inserted in the tenders in violation of the rules and instructions as detailed in reply Para 37(C)(c). Mr. Gurdev Singh Syan was the party to TOC document himself who violated the guidelines in order that the work was finally allotted to Gurinder Singh only. The trio of Mr. Gurdev Singh Syan, Mr. Gulshan Nagpal and Mr. Tailor-made conditions were inserted in the tenders in violation of the rules and instructions as detailed in reply Para 37(C)(c). Mr. Gurdev Singh Syan was the party to TOC document himself who violated the guidelines in order that the work was finally allotted to Gurinder Singh only. The trio of Mr. Gurdev Singh Syan, Mr. Gulshan Nagpal and Mr. Bajrang Lal Singla the higher officers of the Irrigation Department worked together in connivance with the contractor for all these years ensuring that the contracts were only awarded to Gurinder Singh contractor. During the tenure of Gurinder Singh Syan works more than Rs. 200 crores were allotted to the contractor Gurinder Singh while during the tenure of Harvinder Singh, Chief Engineer, contracts of more than Rs. 350 crores were allotted to Gurinder Singh. He then submitted that Gulshan Nagpal and Bajrang Lal Singla shared the entire internal secret information even before the finalization of tender and the difference which would be indicated in the tender and accordingly, as per those instructions and information, the contractor filed his bid which was nothing but a clear conspiracy in connivance with requisite mens rea to have all the contracts won by Gurinder Singh contractor only and then to have him benefitted at the cost of public money in multiple times profit which contractor was not at all entitled to and thus, the contractor has practically looted the public exchequer or public money of the Government of Punjab in conspiracy with these higher officers; (iii) Inviting my attention to the CVC guidelines, which were read over to the Court, he submitted that the same were adopted by the TOC committee and Gurdev Singh Syan was the member of the committee, who signed the minutes. He then submitted that the word 'similar' was dropped from the relevant tender documents prescribing terms and conditions or eligibility and was not defined. The entire exercise of the officers who are some of the petitioners was done to make tailor-made conditions for suiting the eligibility of the contractor. The conditions in the tender documents were drafted and crafted in such a manner that Gurinder Singh contractor alone would be ultimately successful in bidding the contract by keeping away the other participant contractors who would not be able to satisfy the requisite conditions. The conditions in the tender documents were drafted and crafted in such a manner that Gurinder Singh contractor alone would be ultimately successful in bidding the contract by keeping away the other participant contractors who would not be able to satisfy the requisite conditions. There was change of the conditions deliberately made with the criminal intention to make Gurinder Singh as the only contractor who would then get the contracts in collusion and in conspiracy with the officers who are the petitioners before this Court; (iv) The trio as aforesaid had in tandem clubbed the works from various divisions and districts making a single contract with a definite criminal intention to see that the contracts are awarded only to Gurinder Singh. By clubbing the contracts from various divisions and districts which are at far off places, i.e. more than 80 kms, for which the other contractors could have bid in the first place were deprived of. Secondly, the rates given by Gurinder Singh contractor were such that huge losses in crores were caused to the State. There was a criminal intention in clubbing into single tender which is evident from the fact and it was fully within the knowledge of the contractors and officers that Gurinder Singh alone would not be able to complete the huge work at far off places but would sublet the contracts to others. According to him that had actually happened and what is clear from the records is that without any permission or in the absence of any permissive clause in the contract, Gurinder Singh contractor engaged subcontractors at the rates ranging from 35-50% less than for which he had won the contracts. In other words for whatever price the contracts were awarded to Gurinder Singh, the State was put to losses ranging from 30-50% had the tender not been clubbed into single tender. The statements of some sub-contractors have been recorded by the Investigating agency. According to learned Advocate General, this is itself sufficient to deny the relief of grant of anticipatory bail; (v) The bungling in the purchase of pipes and payment thereof made by the Government of Punjab to the contractor is extremely serious. The statements of some sub-contractors have been recorded by the Investigating agency. According to learned Advocate General, this is itself sufficient to deny the relief of grant of anticipatory bail; (v) The bungling in the purchase of pipes and payment thereof made by the Government of Punjab to the contractor is extremely serious. All the above three officers as well as the fourth officer Harvinder Singh, Chief Engineer conspired with the contractor and consequently, the rate that was given for the purchase of pipes was 2-2.5% more than the actual market rate. Learned Advocate General has taken me through various documents of quotations and correspondence etc. to which reference would be made at appropriate stage. The rates that were given by these officers to other contractors only seven months back was at the rates lesser by 2-2.5 times. In the State of Haryana when the same pipes were supplied by the same company, namely Rex Polyextrusion Ltd., the rate was lesser by 2- 2.5 times. By no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the officers were not knowing the rates in the market. However, there was a criminal intention to suppress the same in order that huge rate is given to the contractor which must be for extraneous consideration and no other inference is possible; (vi) In so far as Harvinder Singh, Chief Engineer is concerned, during his tenure, contracts worth more than Rs. 350 crores were allotted to the contractor. Kandi area 85% works were allotted to only Gurinder Singh. He got approved the price of pipes more than Rs. 40 crores which was 1.2-1.25 more than the rates given in the common schedule and market rates; (vii) In Shahpur Kandi Hydel Channel works total costs was Rs. 100 crores. What is strange according to the learned Advocate General is that in total 24 items, the difference that was shown was only Rs. 1 in 10 items with the competing bidders. In other words, Gurinder Singh contractor won all those contracts of those items by showing the difference of Rs. 1 only. That was done with the criminal intention to maneuver the entire tender process for passing ultimate benefit only to Gurinder Singh contractor and all these officers were fully involved in the conspiracy. Harvinder Singh Chief Engineer, who certified the quotations of Jain Irrigation System Ltd., which have now been found to be a forgery. 1 only. That was done with the criminal intention to maneuver the entire tender process for passing ultimate benefit only to Gurinder Singh contractor and all these officers were fully involved in the conspiracy. Harvinder Singh Chief Engineer, who certified the quotations of Jain Irrigation System Ltd., which have now been found to be a forgery. He submitted that the officer of the rank of Chief Engineer indulging in forgery regarding quotations is something which is painful. The statement of concerned officer of the company has been recorded who denied the issuance of quotations. Not only that during the course of hearing when the name of the said officer of the company was referred to this Court to that effect, Gurinder Singh contractor made a WhatsApp call and practically threatened him for giving statement under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the Investigating agency. The statement has been recorded again and placed before this Court in a sealed cover. One G.S. Bains who was working as Junior Engineer with the Irrigation Department and retired on 31.08.2007 is brother-in-law of Harvinder Singh and this Mr. G.S. Bains has been working with Gurinder Singh contractor and the correspondence of e-mail shows that it was he who was in contact with all these officers for clubbing the information regarding tenders etc. There are huge monetary transactions between Gurinder Singh contractor and said Mr. G.S. Bains. But then all other details can be collected by the Investigating agency only if the custodial interrogation of all these officers is allowed to be made. Otherwise it would not be possible to elicit or collect any further evidence in the matter; (viii) The submission that no inquiry should be made by the vigilance bureau because the Special Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab had written a D.O. letter to Chief Secretary, Punjab that such vigilance inquiry would be waste of time is again suppressing the entire investigation as the report in the said earlier inquiry made by committee comprising of three departmental officials. Thus, higher departmental officers themselves conducted the inquiry and this is clear that everything was all right. Thus, higher departmental officers themselves conducted the inquiry and this is clear that everything was all right. The entire report of the engineers as well as role of the Special Chief Secretary is highly suspicious and the intention appears to be that the truth should not come out; (ix) None of the petitioners are entitled to grant of anticipatory bail since all of them and the contractor have been active in obstructing the investigation. When the vigilance asked for the records and documents from Irrigation Department, the concerned higher officer wrote back a letter and refused to hand over files to vigilance which itself shows the influence that is still exercised by all these petitioners. There is every likelihood of petitioners and the contractor removing, damaging and destroying the evidence presently available with the Department of Irrigation, if they are allowed to be at large. Not only that the contractor and all these officers in tandem planned a huge protest by the engineers of the Irrigation Department of Punjab condemning the investigation by vigilance and threatening the Government and it's agencies in that behalf. There is evidence on record in the form of e-mails that the present petitioners as well as Gurinder Singh contractor have again conspired together to obstruct the investigation by vigilance bureau and accordingly, e-mails were exchanged. Pursuant to their plan, huge protests were raised in the state of Punjab by irrigation engineers. Learned Advocate General has shown me the correspondence as well as the newspapers, photographers and reports about the protest; (x) Gurinder Singh contractor is the master-mind in the entire scam. He is the ultimate beneficiary to receive all profits out of unjust enrichment allowed by the officers of the Government. As on date, many of his employees have been hiding after filing of FIR. The CCTV discs at his residence have gone missing. Gurinder Singh contractor is the person who was fully responsible in making the loot of the Government money; (xi) In so far as the petitioner-Vimal Sharma is concerned, learned Advocate General submitted that, though, he was Class-III employee supervisor his role is equally dubious and no sympathy can be shown to him. He submitted that the petitioner-Vimal Sharma was posted at Hoshiarpur to look after the work. He submitted that the petitioner-Vimal Sharma was posted at Hoshiarpur to look after the work. However, without obtaining any permission from the Department to remain away from the Headquarters, namely Hoshiarpur, he stayed at Chandigarh and practically worked as if he was the employee of Gurinder Singh contractor in his office at Chandigarh day in and day out and was a part of the entire conspiracy along with the superior officers with Gurinder Singh contractor. He took a stand before the Sessions Court in his plea for anticipatory bail that he had never worked with Gurinder Singh, but in this Court he has changed the stand by indicating that he had worked with Gurinder Singh contractor and exchanged number of calls. However, evidence collected by the agency now shows that in fact, Vimal Sharma was taking salary from the Punjab Government and was working in the office of Gurinder Singh contractor when he was supposed to be at site in Hoshiarpur district. Clearly, therefore, he was a part and parcel of the conspirators as aforesaid. Mr. Nanda cited certain decisions which would be, if necessary, referred at appropriate time; (xii) Concluding, learned Advocate General, Punjab argued that it is a fact that the petitioners have been putting spokes in the smooth conduct of investigation and looking to the entire conduct of the petitioners, none of them deserve the relief of anticipatory bail. He finally prayed for dismissal of all these petitions for grant of anticipatory bail. CONSIDERATION 17. At the outset, submissions made by learned Advocate General for the State of Punjab that none of the petitioners would be entitled to take benefit of the ad interim anticipatory bail orders made by this Court on the very first day of hearing to contend that the petitioners were not called for joining the investigation and that, therefore, the agency is not interested in real investigation and that therefore, the ad interim orders should be made absolute, will have to be accepted. The first reason is that the said ad interim anticipatory bail was vehemently opposed by the learned Advocate General. But then there was nothing before this Court in the form of affidavit/reply from the State and declining of grant ad interim orders could have made these petitions infructuous. The first reason is that the said ad interim anticipatory bail was vehemently opposed by the learned Advocate General. But then there was nothing before this Court in the form of affidavit/reply from the State and declining of grant ad interim orders could have made these petitions infructuous. The petitioners cannot be allowed to take advantage of the said fact or the further alleged fact that they were not called upon to join investigation. The ad interim order was made by this Court not on merits or after hearing both the sides or after considering entire record and therefore, in my opinion, the contention raised by learned Advocate General must be upheld. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the nature of evidence in the present FIR being of documentary nature and that the same is in the custody of the Government and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary, cannot be accepted. This Court will have to find out whether there is prima facie case against the petitioners either by oral evidence or by documentary evidence and thereafter, decide these matters on their own merits. Assuming that the nature of evidence is of documentary nature is no ground to claim that the petitioners would be automatically entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The next submission that was made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that only the present accused persons have been named in the FIR when there are other engineers and the Government servants who appeared to have also signed numbers of certificates and documents and that action of the Government in being selective is mala fide and therefore, the Court should protect the petitioners. Upon perusal of the averments in all these petitions, I find that the averments relating to mala fides on facts are not specific and pointed nor any specific person has been made as a party to these petitions to contend about malice in fact. In the absence of requisite material on record to that effect, it is not possible to assume or raise suspicion about malice in fact. The contentions as above are thus, disposed of. 18. In the absence of requisite material on record to that effect, it is not possible to assume or raise suspicion about malice in fact. The contentions as above are thus, disposed of. 18. It is true that it is a trite law that while dealing with the petitions for grant of anticipatory bail, a detailed discussion about the evidence on merits should be avoided and the Court is required to find out whether there is prima facie case or not. It is also true that in the present scenario related to economic offences and particularly, the offences relating to the public money in the Government Departments under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court cannot adopt the routine approach. The first allegation made by the prosecution in its affidavit/reply along with large numbers of documents is that the petitioners-Gurdev Singh Syan, Bajrang Lal Singla, Gulshan Nagpal, Harvinder Singh in conspiracy with the contractor-Gurinder Singh for the numbers of years adopted a modus operandi by making tailor-made conditions in the tender suitable to Gurinder Singh contractor only with the criminal intention that almost all the contracts are awarded to him at the cost of leaking the secret information even before the terms and conditions were being finalized. The counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions as well as learned Advocate General as to the alleged tailor-made conditions have advanced the submissions before this Court with reference to numbers of documents, namely, SBD, CVC, DNIT, PWD guidelines and so on and so forth. The precise allegation is that these Government servants/Chief Engineers used to share the sensitive information to Gurinder Singh contractor (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as 'contractor') in the matter of preparation of terms and conditions of tender, the nature of works, the possible experience and eligibility conditions and not only that the contractor and his associates having been fed with the information used to amend the terms and conditions as per their suitability and requirement and accordingly, used to send them back to the officers. The final result of unholy coordination was that almost all the contracts barring a few were bagged by the said contractor. 19. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the said allegation is completely false and baseless in that there is no variation or any deliberate change of terms and conditions or eligibility etc. The final result of unholy coordination was that almost all the contracts barring a few were bagged by the said contractor. 19. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the said allegation is completely false and baseless in that there is no variation or any deliberate change of terms and conditions or eligibility etc. from any of the documents including SBD or the CVC guidelines. At any rate, according to counsel for the petitioners, the CVC guidelines are guidelines and in the best interest of the organization, the petitioners had a discussion to make some changes in the terms and conditions with a view that the participation of the contractors increase rather than decreasing the same. 20. According to learned counsel for the Advocate General, the changes made by these officers were materially different and the only intention was to see that all the contracts are awarded to the said contractor. That is why the word 'similar' work inserted in the CVC guidelines was deliberately omitted and the tender notice did not contain specification with a deliberate view to forbid the other contractors for coming into the race. 21. I have gone through the office memorandum dated 17.12.2002 issued by CVC with the assistance of the learned counsel for the rival parties. The perusal of the entire record and huge documents do show that the petitioners-officers had changed the terms and conditions of eligibility etc. in violation of the CVC guidelines and in violation of the terms and conditions set out by the technical advisory committee to which Gurdev Singh Syan himself was a party. As it is not possible to refer to each and every piece of documentary evidence to burden the present order, but then prima facie, this Court finds that all the petitioners had worked together for making unjust enrichment of the contractor by creating a condition that the major contracts are awarded to the contractor and all other contractors are kept away. That is not the only issue, but what is seen is that as a result, all these acts of the petitioners together, the State was straight away put to loss to the extent of around 35 to 50% of the contracts. That is not the only issue, but what is seen is that as a result, all these acts of the petitioners together, the State was straight away put to loss to the extent of around 35 to 50% of the contracts. To support this finding what I find is that the contractor obviously having no capacity to execute himself the entire huge work ultimately sublet the work to the local contractors on his own and obviously with active connivance with the petitioners who are petitioners before this Court. This is averred in Para 37(A)(f) of the affidavit by the State of Punjab in CRM-M-36763 of 2017, which I quote hereunder:- "37(A)(f) There is evidence on record to suggest subletting of works by Gurinder Singh contractor and silence of Gulshan Nagpal over it, as proof of his connivance with Gurinder Singh, contractor. Thus, custodial interrogation of Gulshan Nagpal and Gurinder Singh contractor are required to ascertain total instances of such unauthorized instances of subletting of works by the main contractor, done with connivance of accused department officials." The statements of some of the contractors have been recorded by the Investigating agency as argued before me and it is seen that the said contractors had performed the work for the contractor Gurinder Singh at a rate lesser by 35-50% of the rates allotted to Gurinder Singh and received by him. In my opinion, this is a very strong evidence to show that by making a conspiracy to put all the other contractors who ultimately worked as sub-contractors for Gurinder Singh, the Government was straight-away put to monetary loss ranging from 35-50%. Had the Government officers and the contractors not acted in collusion and allowed sub-contractors also to participate in the process without making tailor-made conditions suitable for the contractor-Gurinder Singh, all these contractors who had ultimately performed the work for contractor Gurinder Singh at the said lesser rate of 35-50% would have actually worked. In my opinion, this fall out ultimately is a strong evidence of the allegation of the prosecution that the terms and conditions and eligibility conditions were so tailor-made that all other contractors would be away and Gurinder Singh would be able to receive all the contracts. In my opinion, this fall out ultimately is a strong evidence of the allegation of the prosecution that the terms and conditions and eligibility conditions were so tailor-made that all other contractors would be away and Gurinder Singh would be able to receive all the contracts. To obtain the contracts at higher rates, in conspiracy with the petitioners-officers at 35-50% rates from the Government and thereafter, without any permission from the Government and in connivance with the aforesaid officers subletting the work to other contractors reveals a clear-cut criminal intention, mens rea and a large part of conspiracy. Some statements of sub-contractors have been recorded. It cannot be said that none of the petitioners-officers who are before me in these petitions never knew about the work being performed by subcontractors engaged by the contractor-Gurinder Singh. But as preplanned, they did not object nor complained to the Government. On the contrary, they deliberately allowed it to happen under their nose obviously, i.e. with a requisite criminal intention. They knew that contractor would not do himself. Thus, it is prima facie proved that the works were allotted to Gurinder Singh contractor at highly inflated rates 35-50% higher causing straight loss to the public money in the State of Punjab. It in this fallout background evidence, it would not be necessary for me to enter into niceties pointed by counsel for both the parties about the violation/compliance/amendments in the tender documents as per CVC/PWD guidelines. The reason is that the evidence as discussed by me above, prima facie shows substance in the contention raised by the State about making tailor-made conditions etc. It is very much essential to record the statements of all the subcontractors. 22. Learned Advocate General, Punjab further contended that all the sub-contractors are afraid of recording of their statements, though, some of them have recorded their statements because the petitioners are influential persons with means to prevent them from cooperating in the investigation and that is why until and unless custodial interrogation of all the petitioners is made, the list of entire sub-contractors who have worked as above and received payments in the manner indicated above from the contractor would not be available. Hence, it is necessary to have custodial interrogation of all the petitioners. I find much substance in the contention raised by learned Advocate General. 23. Hence, it is necessary to have custodial interrogation of all the petitioners. I find much substance in the contention raised by learned Advocate General. 23. The next prosecution allegation is that 52 different works were clubbed into single tender with a view to allow the said single tender only to the contractor that too at huge rates and in that 308 works orders were issued. In that connection, the following allegations are made in Para 37(A)(m) of the affidavit by the State of Punjab in CRM-M-36763 of 2017:- "37(A)(m) Similar in a work tender of Rs. 39 crores (final cost) initially 52 different project estimates were sent to the Technical Advisor to Chief Minister for vetting. Thereafter all of a sudden, by clubbing all these works, a single tender was floated on 25.04.2012 and it was allotted to the accused Gurinder Singh, contractor as a single bidder at rates which were 15% above departmental rates. Thereafter, as this work comprised of many small, different and unique works which were clubbed with each other, 308 different work orders were issued to Gurinder Singh contractor for this work, thus depicting extent of clubbing........." 24. It is not in dispute that the work was spread over to 22 villages at far off places falling in different divisions and districts. It is also not in dispute that there are various contractors in these divisions and district in the State of Punjab. In the ordinary course, the contractors existing in these areas would have been the best to perform the work obviously at lower price had those 52 different works not been clubbed into single tender. On the contrary looking to the area falling under the project, which is a very long area covering around 444 kms and 600+ kms of pipes for laying the pipes underground, a single contractor would not be in a position to perform the work himself and by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the petitioners-officers in these petitions did not have any inkling or knowledge about it. On the contrary, knowing fully well that contractor was bound to engage local sub-contractors, these officers joined hands with the contractor as a part of the conspiracy. The net result as stated earlier was that the contractor Gurinder Singh had to engage the very same sub-contractors. On the contrary, knowing fully well that contractor was bound to engage local sub-contractors, these officers joined hands with the contractor as a part of the conspiracy. The net result as stated earlier was that the contractor Gurinder Singh had to engage the very same sub-contractors. These sub-contractors were paid lesser by 35-50% out of 100% amount collected by the contractor. Thus, all the petitioners systematically worked in tandem to cause straight loss to the Government between 35-50%. 25. The exchange of e-mails, correspondences between Gulshan Nagpal and G.S. Bains about the preliminary draft and final draft is produced as Annexure R-2 with the affidavit filed by the State of Punjab in CRM-M-36763 of 2017. I have carefully perused the said documents, which is not in dispute. The e-mail was made from the personal I.D of Gulshan Nagpal to official I.D., on 23.09.2014 addressed to G.S. Bains. It would be appropriate to reproduce the said Annexure R-2 which is as under:- "Gulshan Nagpal Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:10 AM To: "dcd.gdb@gmail.com" Regards Gulshan Nagpal Being forwarded message: From: Bains Dated: 13 September 2014 11:11:00 am GMT+5:30 To: "gulshannagpal10@gmail.com" Subject: FINAL DISCUSSED DRAFT SUB SURFACE 09.09.14 (Changed) Ready For tender Document from our side. Sent from my iPad FINAL DISCUSSED DRAFT SUB SURFACE 09.09.14 (Change).pdf 866K DCD Gidderbaha Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:17 AM To: jaspaulgarg11 [Quoted text hidden] Sent from my iPad FINAL DISCUSSED DRAFT SUB SURFACE 09.09.14 (Change).pdf 866K." It is clear therefrom that the information about the tender of 13.09.2014 etc., preliminary draft, final draft etc. was shared by the Chief Engineer Gulshan Nagpal and in consultation with G.S. Bains working with Gurinder Singh contractor, the same was finalized. The information given seven days before the tender by Gulshan Nagpal and preparation of draft as per the need of the contractor, in my opinion is a very serious breach of trust on the part of a Government servant who appear to have mortgaged all their loyalties, which is clear from the reading of the above document. This is an evidence of fact that the contractor and all these officers were in a pre-planned conspiracy. This is an evidence of fact that the contractor and all these officers were in a pre-planned conspiracy. The State has produced Annexure R-1 with its affidavit filed in CRM-M- 36763 of 2017, which runs into several pages which is the data regarding Bajrang Lal Singla exchanging e-mails with Gurinder Singh contractor from his personal e-mail I.D. to Bajrang Lal Singla posted at Headquarter. I have perused the entire chart (Annexure R-1) and I find that Bajrang Lal Singla had sent all the sensitive information to Gurinder Singh contractor about the internal meetings of the committees or TOC and the agenda that was to be taken up in those meetings in respect of the subject matter. A perusal of the said document shows that Bajrang Lal Singla also shared the dates which were proposed from time to time for meetings etc. He even leaked the turn-over of other contractors to him which is the secret information with the Department. He also shared the draft of tender notice and conditions and so also is the case with Gulshan Nagpal, details of whose e-mails are given at Pages 47-48 of the affidavit filed by the State of Punjab in CRM-M-36763 of 2017. It is thus, clear that Bajrang Lal Singla and Gulshan Nagpal both were working for the benefit of the contractor rather than Government. There are numbers of call details, produced at Page 49 of the said affidavit, between Rakesh, Gulshan Nagpal, Gurinder Singh, Balrang Lal Singla, Paramjit Singh and Vimal Sharma. The required details about e-mails and the call details etc. can only be found out by the custodial interrogation of the petitioners separately and together. Therefore, the custodial interrogation is most essential. 26. The story about obtaining of quotations for pipes by all these officers is again shocking in the sense that the rates of the pipes of the prescribed size etc. were obtained from Rex Polyextrusion Ltd. company in March 2014 by Haryana Government; for example at the rate of Rs. 425/- per meter and by Gurdev Singh Syan himself in February 2014 at the rate of Rs. 690/- per meter, but the same Gurdev Singh Syan sanctioned the rate of the same pipes for the contractor at the rate of Rs. 1100/- per meter. The State has also found out the actual purchase/bills/details of the contractor, which shows that the contractor purchased the same at Rs. 690/- per meter, but the same Gurdev Singh Syan sanctioned the rate of the same pipes for the contractor at the rate of Rs. 1100/- per meter. The State has also found out the actual purchase/bills/details of the contractor, which shows that the contractor purchased the same at Rs. 491.09 per meter during 2015-2016. It would be appropriate to produce the chart placed before the Court by the respondent-State, which is as under:- Size of PVC Perforrated Corrugated Pipe Rate per meter in Haryana rate contract dated March, 2014 These rates are used to indicate prevailing market rates at that time Rate per meter taken in another estimate for similar sub surface work allotted to Ashok Kumar in Feb, 2014 (Sanction by Gurdev Singh Syan, CE) Field Rate per meter taken in 75 Crore Estimate (Present cost 115 Crore) in October, 2014 (Sanctioned by Gurdev Singh Syan, CE) Maximum purchase rate per meter by Gurinder Singh, Contractor, during 2015, 2016 (Based on actual purchase bills, all bills available) Length of pipes used 178/200 mm 425 690 1100 491.09 5516 Meter 144/160 mm 275 418 794 331.44 2193 Meter (pipes as long as 12 km are still lying in stock) 72/80 mm 59 85 160 64.85 49557 Meter" Thus, all this clearly shows that the petitioners-officers deliberately and with criminal intention allowed the contractor to have unjust enrichment at the excess rate of Rs. 608.91 per meter (Rs. 1100 - Rs. 491.09). That is also true in respect of other items mentioned in the above chart. In my opinion, this evidence which has not been denied is tell-telling about the offences committed by the petitioners. The submission that the rate of pipes depends upon the market condition and rising of price of 'Rasin' which is a petroleum product and therefore, there is variation in the market about the rates, is wholly misconceived and falsified by the fact that the rates at which the pipes were purchased by the contractor have also been given in the above chart, namely Rs. 491.09 per meter, Rs. 331.24 per meter and Rs. 64.85 per meter for respective items as against the amount collected in the sum of Rs. 1100 per meter, Rs. 794 per meter and Rs. 160 per meter for respective items. The three engineers Gurdev Singh Syan, Bajrang Lal Singla and Gulshan Nagpal are fully involved in the aforesaid activity. 27. 491.09 per meter, Rs. 331.24 per meter and Rs. 64.85 per meter for respective items as against the amount collected in the sum of Rs. 1100 per meter, Rs. 794 per meter and Rs. 160 per meter for respective items. The three engineers Gurdev Singh Syan, Bajrang Lal Singla and Gulshan Nagpal are fully involved in the aforesaid activity. 27. In so far as Chief Engineer Harvinder Singh is concerned, similar is the position and is clear from the chart produced before this Court. Because of his conduct, loss of about Rs. 8 crores stood caused to the State of Punjab as the price list of Jain Irrigation System from 2013 (Annexure R-26 page 199 with the affidavit filed by the State in CRMM- 36763 of 2017) shows that the rates were too low than the approved and paid to Gurinder Singh. In this connection, it is serious to note that the petitioner-Harvinder Singh even went to the extent of committing forgery inasmuch as he purportedly produced on record the rates from Jain Irrigation System Ltd. which now, during investigation, has revealed that those quotations from Jain Irrigation System Ltd. produced by him are all forged and fabricated. The officer from Jain Irrigation System Ltd. has written accordingly, to the investigating agency that the company never issues quotations in the format created by Harvinder Singh. I have perused the statement of the officer of the Jain Irrigation System Ltd. During the course of hearing, after this Court was shown the statement of the said officer, learned Advocate General submitted that Gurinder Singh contractor made a WhatsApp call to the officer of said company and asked as to why he gave statement to the Investigating agency. The officer, accordingly, reported to the police and statement has been kept in record in a sealed cover. 28. There is evidence on record in the form of photographs, news of newspapers showing that the huge protest by Irrigation Department engineers against the investigation by the vigilance bureau were made vociferously vide Annexure R-19 with the said affidavit. Bajrang Lal Singla has even shared e-mail with Gurinder Singh contractor vide Annexure R-20 with the said affidavit regarding the protest against alleged harassment by Amarinder's Vigilance Bureau. It is Bajrang Lal Singla and Gurinder Singh who planned protest against the vigilance bureau for making investigation. Bajrang Lal Singla has even shared e-mail with Gurinder Singh contractor vide Annexure R-20 with the said affidavit regarding the protest against alleged harassment by Amarinder's Vigilance Bureau. It is Bajrang Lal Singla and Gurinder Singh who planned protest against the vigilance bureau for making investigation. Apart from that the State has placed on record a letter dated 21.08.2017 (Annexure R- 18 with the said affidavit). It is better to reproduce the said letter on record:- "Regarding aforesaid subject, your office had sought record of 7 no. works on priority, from that this office had sent record of 4 no. works (S. No.2,4,5 and 7) to you, S.No. 2's record vide letter No.2294/2 drainage dated 28.07.2017, S. No.4's record vide letter No.2384/2 drainage dated 03.08.2017, S.No.5's record vide no.2296/2 drainage dated 28.07.2017 and S.No.7's record vide letter no.2295/2 drainage dated 28.07.2017 was sent. Record of 4 no. works, sought on priority, was not sent because joint action committee comprising PSE-1, Diploma Engineers Association, AMIE Association, Engineering drawing staff association. Ministerial staff association and Revenue Patwari Association, as per the discussion in a meeting after meeting with Principal Secretary/Irrigation, had informed this office vide letter No.3/Special/Chandigarh dated 26.07.2017 that record of only 4 number works be sent. Therefore as per that the record of 4 nos. works was sent by this office to you. ................." Perusal of the said letter shows that the Chief Engineer (Drainage) of the Irrigation Department acting allegedly on the joint action committee of the Government servants, i.e. the Engineers, Ministerial staff etc. informed the vigilance bureau that out of records sought by the vigilance bureau, only four should be send to the bureau. Thus, he has refused to give records to the vigilance bureau. In my opinion, the aforesaid letter as well as the protest managed by the petitioners is a clear attempt to prohibit the vigilance bureau and put pressure on the Government not to make investigation. This is nothing but tampering with the prosecution evidence and destructive of rule of law. With the aforesaid letter coupled with the said protest, I am convinced that unless the custodial interrogation is made, nothing fruitful will come out. 29. This is nothing but tampering with the prosecution evidence and destructive of rule of law. With the aforesaid letter coupled with the said protest, I am convinced that unless the custodial interrogation is made, nothing fruitful will come out. 29. In so far as Vimal Sharma Class-III supervisor is concerned, he initially stated that he did not work for Gurinder Singh contractor and that he had nothing to do with his office at Chandigarh because he was posted at Hoshiarpur. However, the Investigating agency has recorded statements of some of the witnesses which show that Vimal Sharma was everyday sitting in the office of Gurinder Singh contractor at Chandigarh and did not stay at Headquarters at Hoshiarpur where the work was going on. In other words, the petitioner-Vimal Sharma was taking salary from the Government of Punjab and was working for Gurinder Singh contractor in his office at Chandigarh without obtaining any permission to leave his Headquarters at Hoshiarpur. He worked in tandem with Rakesh, the employee of Gurinder Singh contractor. He knows each and every point of the conspirary. The person with such a dishonest conduct cannot be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 30. As to citations placed before me by the learned counsel for both sides, I need not refer them as there can be no dispute about the propositions of law propounded by the Supreme Court, and in fact I have followed the law laid down. 31. To sum up this Court is convinced that there is prima facie evidence against all the petitioners and huge evidence is required to be collected by the Investigating agency and that is possible only if the custodial interrogation is allowed and not otherwise. The plea for grant of anticipatory bail made by all the petitioners, therefore, will have to be turned down. In the result, I make the following order:- ORDER (i) All these petitions, i.e. CRM-M-36763 of 2017 preferred by Gurdev Singh Syan, CRM-M-36999 of 2017 preferred by Vimal Sharma, CRM-M-37135 of 2017 preferred by Gurinder Singh, CRM-M-37244 of 2017 preferred by Gulshan Nagpal, CRM-M-36133 of 2017 preferred by Harvinder Singh and CRM-M-36230 of 2017 preferred by Bajrang Lal Singla for grant of anticipatory bail are dismissed; (ii) Ad interim orders made by this Court in all these petitions are vacated.