IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.M.P. (M) 1065 of 2008. Date of Decision: 22-10-2008. _______________________________________________________________ Subash Ahluwalia Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.S.Thakur ,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. M.S. Chandel, Advocate with Mr. N.S. Chandel and Rakesh Jaswal, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer, Mr. Jiwan Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor and Mr. N.K. Sharma, Dy. Supdt of Police, State Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau, Shimla. ___________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J, (oral). The present application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 6 of 2008 in Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla. Notice of this application was given to the State. Shri J.S. Guleria, Law Officer, has put in appearance on behalf of the State along with Special Public Prosecutor, filed the report and objected to the bail. The synoptical resume of the facts is that the petitioner is an I.A.S. Officer and was the Principal Private Secretary to the Whether the reporters of local newspapers are allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. then Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh. It is argued by Shri M.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner that B.J.P. had presented a charter for enquiring into his conduct and after the change of the Government, this matter was further pursued and a preliminary inquiry was conducted pursuant to which the present F.I.R. was lodged against him under Section 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and a questionnaire was circulated to the petitioner to explain his position which, according to him, was duly answered. Learned counsel also submitted that whatever answers and material were produced by the petitioner during his interrogation, no other document or record came to light even during the custody of the petitioner w.e.f. 8-10-2008 to 20-10-2008. Now it is a matter of calculations whether the petitioner has the assets more than the known sources of income. The learned counsel further argued that it is an ordinary offence punishable with seven years of imprisonment and further that the petitioner is lodging in judicial lock up, thus no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him in judicial custody. However, reasonable restrictions can be imposed, in case he is granted bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner has rendered all possible cooperation during the investigation he associated the interrogation more than ten times and was also interrogated during his illness in the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, thus he has a case for bail. The aforesaid arguments have been countered by Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer duly assisted by Shri Jiwan Lal Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor on the ground that the conduct of the petitioner was not fare during his police custody. He mostly remained admitted in the hospital. Keeping in view his status and position which he had enjoyed earlier, there is apprehension that he would influence the prosecution evidence. It is also argued that though his pass port has been impounded, yet chances of his escaping from legal wrath cannot be ruled out. It is further argued that four mega sizes bank lockers at Panchkula hired by the family members of the petitioner were found empty. The Investigating Officer could not get any information as to what was kept in those lockers, though the petitioner revealed to have kept some documents. While concluding his arguments, learned Law Officer placed reliance on para 7 of the judgment reported in AIR 1989 SC 2292 and argued that granting bail to the petitioner would be against the public interest and will have adverse impact on the society. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the rival contentions advanced by the parties. It is a fact that before lodging the FIR on 22.5.2008, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the State Vigilance Department on the information given by one Shri Gopal Dass Verma and other source reports were also alleged to have been received. It was on that basis, the enquiry was held and the FIR was lodged under the aforesaid Sections. From the investigation record, it also transpires that a questionnaire was handed over to the petitioner to explain all the points mentioned therein including four lockers in the bank at Panchkula. The petitioner is stated to have given the reply of all the questions and thereafter he also joined the investigation of this case twelve times. During all this period, there was no allegation that he tried to thwart the investigation in any manner. The check period is stated to be with effect from 1.1.2003 to 31.3.2008. Precisely, it is the allegation against him that he was having disproportionate assets than his known sources of income. The petitioner was arrested by the State Vigilance Anti-corruption Bureau on 8.10.2008 and he was remanded to their custody by the ld. Special Judge who was also not convinced with the allegations as per para 9 of his order dated 16.10.2008. He remained up to 12 days and during this period, he was also hospitalized. Whatever revelations and disclosures were made earlier, there appears to be no further break-through in the investigation of this case. However, the bail application has been opposed on the following grounds that :- (i) there is an apprehension that the accused being influential person, may tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) accused may leave the jurisdiction of this Court; (iii) he may destroy the prosecution evidence which is yet to be collected as the investigation is still going on and may also hamper with the investigation of the case being senior IAS Officer. True it is that corruption in India is deep rooted and it has eaten up the roots of the Society. It cannot be said to be an offence of ordinary nature, however, grant of bail or its rejection has to be looked into on the set legal parameters. Against the whole scenario which has been placed before me and the fact that the presently the petitioner has been sent to judicial custody, bail cannot be denied to him. Accordingly, the objections put-forth by the State, bail can be granted to the petitioner by imposing suitable conditions. As such, without commenting on the merits or demerits of the case, the present application is allowed on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of rupees 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (Forests) Shimla and this bail shall be subject to the following conditions :- (a) the petitioner shall join and cooperate with the investigation of this case as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also present in the Court as and when required to do so; (b) the petitioner shall not cause any threat, promise or inducement to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to make true disclosure of the facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer; (c) so long as the case remains under investigation, the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In case, the petitioner in any eventuality is required to move out of the State of Himachal Pradesh, he shall keep the investigating officer informed about his whereabouts and address. The Investigating officer shall send the notice to him for his joining the investigation, if required, under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (d) The passport of the petitioner shall not be released to him till as the investigation of this case is concluded. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for its return before the ld. Trial Court which shall be decided by the court concerned after due notice to the State on merits. (e) The petitioner shall also not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. Needless to say, if the petitioner flouts any of the conditions aforesaid, the liberty of bail shall be cancelled. Any observation or reference, made hereinabove, is strictly for the purpose of deciding this application and it shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case. A copy of this order be sent forthwith to learned Special Judge (Forests) for his information and necessary action at his end. (Surinder Singh) Judge. October 22, 2008. (bm)