IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No. 4217-M of 2008 Date of decision: January 9, 2009 Kulwinder and another ….. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, DAG, Haryana. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 7,8,9, 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 365, 392 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Chetan Anand complainant who is a property dealer. It has been alleged by the complainant that while he along with his friends namely Sadanad Yadav and Chetan Kaushik were making a programme to eat and drink, then at about 10/11 o’clock at night on 17.12.2007, the petitioners who are police officials in uniform knocked at the door and barged into his house. They alleged that the complainant had brought a girl and they were having her photograph and would call the family members of the complainant. The petitioners then searched the house, but they did not find anybody. However, they persisted that the address and photograph of the girl was with them and they would get a case registered against the complainant and others. A sum of Crl. M. No. 4217-M of 2008 [2] Rs. 1 lac, it is alleged, was demanded by the petitioners as bribe. The complainant stated that he did not have this much of amount. Then the petitioners threatened the complainant to write that he had brought a girl. The complainant out of fear wrote the same. The petitioners had also shown a photograph of a girl to the complainant. On 19.12.2007, the complainant, it is alleged on being called by the petitioners, gave an amount of Rs.1 lac to the petitioners at the petrol pump near the Police Station on the road leading to Sector 29, Gurgaon. Thereafter, Chetan Kaushik a friend of the complainant spoke to Bijender @ Liri Constable of his village regarding the incident and of giving and taking of Rs.1 lac by the complainant to the petitioners. On this, Sukhbir Singh, SHO Police Station Sector 40 called the complainant to Leisure Valley Park, Gurgaon and asked the complainant as to whether the petitioners had been given an amount of Rs.1 lac. The complainant stated that he had given a sum of Rs.1 lac on 19.12.2007. The petitioners on being confronted are stated to have confessed before the SHO that they (petitioners) had taken a sum of Rs.1 lac. On this, the SHO and other Police officials who were present there namely Constable Anil, EHC Sanjay and Constable Bijender @ Liri took the complainant to the Police Station, Sector 40 along with his car. Thereafter, the petitioners, Constable Anil and EHC Sanjay separately spoke to the SHO. Bijender @ Liri Constable, it is alleged, left the Leisure Valley Park and he had no role to play in this. He had only informed the SHO regarding the occurrence. Then the four Police officials i.e. the petitioners No.1 and 2 namely Kulwinder and Rakesh, Constable Anil and EHC Sanjay who were present there talked to the SHO. Kulwinder (petitioner No.1) separately called the complainant and said that the complainant would have to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- more otherwise, he would be implicated in a case. The complainant at that time did not have the money. He was asked to give the same on the next day i.e. 30.12.2007 and in the meanwhile, the mobile phone number and registration copy of Crl. M. No. 4217-M of 2008 [3] the vehicle of the complainant was kept by Kulwinder (petitioner No.1). The complainant stated that he did not want to give the bribe but Kulwinder was not giving back his mobile phone and registration copy of the vehicle without taking the money. He was afraid that he may be implicated in a false case. He (complainant) had no enmity of any kind with Kulwinder (petitioner No.1) and others police officials nor he had any dealing or any kind of balance due from Kulwinder (petitioner No.1). At about 1/1.30 p.m. on 30.12.2007, Kulwinder (petitioner No.1) had called the complainant on his own and the complainant recorded his conversation. The application and the recorded voice were submitted by the complainant before the Vigilance Bureau. On the basis of the said allegations, the FIR has been registered. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the complainant is a property dealer who was well-known to the petitioners as the petitioners have been giving him money which was invested by the complainant in various deals. It is submitted that it is not as if the petitioners were unknown to the complainant. A reference has been made to the mobile call details (Annexure P2) of Kulwinder (petitioner No.1) for the period from 1.10.2007 to 31.12.2007. On the strength of the same, it is contended that from 13.12.2007, there are several calls which were made by Kulwinder (petitioner No.1) to the complainant. Besides, at the time of the alleged occurrence on 17.12.2007 at 10-11 pm, Kulwinder Singh (petitioner No.1) and the complainant were speaking on phone which is evident from the mobile call details (Annexure P2). It is also submitted that the petitioners are only Constables and the property dealer would not pay as huge an amount of Rs.1 lac to the petitioners. In fact it is submitted that the petitioners were on duty at the Leisure Valley Park, Gurgaon where on one occasion, the complainant had brought a girl and he was restrained for bringing a girl to the Park as this was part of the duty of the petitioners as Constables. Therefore, to wreak vengeance, a false story has been Crl. M. No. 4217-M of 2008 [4] cooked up. The mobile conversation that has been tape-recorded, it is submitted, contains various blanks which, it is submitted, shows that it has been tampered with. It is also submitted that a cousin brother of the complainant was also a part of the rading party. In response, learned State counsel has submitted on instructions from Basant Pal, Inspector Vigilance that the petitioners have been joining the investigation from time to time. However, the mobile phone of the complainant and the registration copy of the vehicle of the complainant which the complainant has alleged that the petitioners have taken, is still to be recovered. Besides, a sum of Rs.1 lac is also to be recovered. It is submitted that a script of the tape-recorded conversation on the mobile phone on 30.12.2007 between Kulwinder (petitioner No.1) and the complainant has also been submitted. It is submitted that a perusal of the said conversation would clearly show that there was a talk of some amount and the complainant had stated that he was falling short of about Rs.15,000/- in meeting a demand of Rs.60,000/-. It is also submitted that when the complainant came to give an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the petitioners, a raid was conducted, although the money was not given to the petitioners and nor was it recovered. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance also perused the record. It may be noticed that interim bail was granted to the petitioners on 18.2.2008 and since then, they have been joining the investigation time and again as is submitted by the learned counsel for the State. From the nature of allegations it is evident that no recovery of any tainted amount has been effected. In fact in respect of an amount of Rs.60,000/- which is purported to have been demanded by the petitioners was not given and neither has it been received by the petitioners. A perusal of the transcription of the tape recorded conversation which has been Crl. M. No. 4217-M of 2008 [5] submitted shows that at some places there are blanks. These, according to the learned State counsel are due to the unclear speech. Otherwise, the transcription is correct. However, this aspect is to be investigated and then proved. It may, however, be noticed that at one stage, the complainant does say that he is falling short of about Rs.15,000/-. However in what connection he is falling short cannot be determined or gone into at this stage. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there was no demand of any kind whatsoever for any amount by the petitioners and neither was any amount paid to them. It is quite improbable to say at this stage as to whether a property dealer would pay a sum of Rs.1 lac to the petitioners who are Constables. In any case, this would require to be investigated and gone into by the investigating authorities. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient to confirm the interim order dated 18.2.2008. Accordingly, the interim order granted on 18.2.2008 is made absolute and shall continue till the filing of the challan before the competent Court. Criminal Misc. petition stands disposed of accordingly. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 09, 2009 amit