Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1301 (PNJ)

Jaspreet Singh @ Jas v. State of Haryana

2021-07-14

AVNEESH JHINGAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. 1. The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation. 2. These are two petitions filed by petitioners-Jaspreet Singh @ Jas and Parveen for grant of regular bail in case of FIR No. 590 dated 2.11.2020, under Sections 420, 186, 201, 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 7-A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Sadar, Thanesar. 3. A secret information was received that owners of certain vehicles were passing overloaded vehicles after getting information about checking officers like Regional Transport Authority (RTA), SDM and Sales Tax Authority and a WhatsApp Group was being run in each District on which the information was forwarded. Acting on the information, Jaspreet Singh @ Jas was apprehended. As per case set up Jaspreet Singh @ Jas was employee of Amarjeet getting salary of Rs.1000/- per month. 4. He use to collect the information and forward it to Amarjeet. 5. Parveen, the Chowkidar in Market Committee was apprehended and the allegations are that he was passing the information regarding the movement of the officials. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are in custody for more than seven months. No recovery is to be made and the investigation is complete. It is further argued that even as per the case set up by the prosecution, Jaspreet Singh @ Jas was only an employee of the Admin of the group. Parveen was a Chowkidar and nothing to do with RTA, SDM and STA. 7. Learned State counsel opposes the grant of bail and submits that the petitioners were the limbs facilitating passing of over loaded vehicles thereby causing loss to the state exchequer. She on instructions from DSP Narinder Singh submits that challan has been presented and charges framed. 8. Investigation in the present case is complete. No recovery is to be made from the petitioners. The petitioners are in custody for more than seven months. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind bars. The petitioners are granted bail on furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.