CRM-M No.9184 of 2009 (O&M) -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.9184 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.8.2009
Kuldip Singh
..Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab
..Respondent.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present : Mr.P.S.Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.AG Punjab for the respondent/State.
Mr.Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(Oral)
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of
anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.37 dated 10.3.2009 under
Section 7/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at P.S.
Payal, District Ludhiana.
The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of
Harwinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh sons of Ran Singh, residents of
village Chomo. It is alleged in the FIR that Hari Singh, uncle of the
complainant died on 23.4.2008 bequeathing his property by executing a
registered Will dated 18.11.1988. The complainant had approached the
petitioner for the purpose of entering the mutation of the land, which had
been bequeathed by testator Hari Singh in their favour but the petitioner
demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.35,000/- and out of which
Rs.25,000/- has been paid. The petitioner then brought to the notice of the
CRM-M No.9184 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
complainant that since the land is encumbered under the bank loan,
therefore, its clearance certificate is required. It was also brought to the
notice of the complainant that if bank clearance certificate is not given then
mutation cannot be entered. Complainant produced bank clearance
certificate but at that time the petitioner again demanded Rs.10,000/- which
led to the filing of the complaint.
Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had approached the
learned Special Judge, Ludhiana for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed
on 25.3.2009.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is a
flaw in the procedure and the petitioner has been framed in this case due to
political rivalry. It is submitted that as per instructions issued on 7.1.2005
by Additional Director General of Police Crime, Punjab no case should be
registered on their own level by the police officials/employees except by
DSP posted in the Vigilance Department or official of the higher rank. He
further submits that preliminary enquiry should be conducted before
registration of the case.
As against this, counsel for the State assisted by the counsel
for the complainant, has submitted that it is provided in the FIR itself that
the case has been registered after the approval of Sr.Superintendent of
Police, Khanna. It is also submitted that in compliance of the instructions
dated 7.1.2005, the matter was sent back to the Vigilance Department but
the Director Vigilance returned the file to local police on 22.4.2009 for the
purpose of investigation. It is also submitted that during the course of
investigation, almost 46 calls have been detected from a particular mobile
number owned by one Devinder Singh, who has made the calls to the
CRM-M No.9184 of 2009 (O&M) -3-
petitioner between 2.1.2009 to 7.3.2009. It is also submitted that the
petitioner is facing trial in two other cases, namely, FIR No.64 dated
17.12.2008 under Sections 452/447/380 IPC at Police Station Divn.No.6,
Ludhiana and FIR No.48 dated 29.8.2001 under Section 7/13 of Prevention
of Corruption Act registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective
contentions raised by the counsel for the parties.
Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence as well as
antecedents of the petitioner, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner, therefore, the petition is hereby dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar Jain)
17.8.2009 Judge
Meenu