CRM No. M-3287 of 2011 SUBASH vs STATE OF HARYANA Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Deol, AAG, Punjab, Advocate for the Respondent **** Heard counsels for the parties. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered against him on 03.06.2008 for the offences under sections 7, 8, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as also Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak. The FIR has been registered on the basis of an enquiry conducted by Vijay Kumar, Inspector, Vigilance Bureau, Karnal on a complaint made to the Chief Secretary, Haryana regarding sanction of fake poultry loans by the officials of the Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (Bank for short). According to the enquiry report one Tek Chand Taneja who is working as a Manager in the Bank, had sanctioned poultry loans and other loans to various persons by taking commission. One poultry loan was applied for by Jagan Nath and Madan Lal, with incorrect documents and fake training certificates. However, Tek Chand Taneja was sanctioned the loan by taking illegal gratification. During the investigation, the role of Subash Chand (petitioner) had been brought out and it is mentioned that he was a go between the intending loanees and the said Manager of the Bank namely Tek Chand Taneja. One Ram Kumar applied for a loan for a sum of Rs. 1.00 Lac for the repair of his House, which was sanctioned by Tek Chand Taneja, Manager of the Bank after taking a commission of Rs. 15,000/-. Subash Chand, (petitioner) was a go between for facilitating loans by taking commission in the said case. The loan was sanctioned in favourof CRM No. M-3287 of 2011 -2- favour of Ram Kumar without any verification or obtaining a report regarding the House. Ram Kumar has not paid any installment of the loan that he had taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner submited that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by Ram Kumar as his brother Diwan Singh was inimical towards the petitioner. Said Diwan Singh had filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner with regard to supply of inferior quality of cement. The petitioner, it is submitted, in fact has no connection with Ram Kumar. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is a go between amongst the various loanees for the sanction of loans. It is submitted that the statement of Ram Kumar has been recorded in which he had stated that he has got loan of Rs. One Lac sanctioned by paying Tek Chand Taneja a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. It is further submitted that the Manager of the Bank has been arrested and he also corroborates the fact that the petitioner was his agent. Besides, the statements of two persons Krishan Kumar and Rattan have been recorded who were present at the time when the money was paid to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the statements of Dharam Pal and Darshan Singh have been recorded whose loan was inititally declined but with the intervention of Subash (petitioner) and payment of commission, the loan was sanctioned. After giving my thoughful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that there is material with the Vigilance Bureau, as regards the petitoner being a go between the Manager of the Bank namely Tek Chand Taneja and other loanees for which the custodial CRM No. M-3287 of 2011 -3- interrogation would be necessary to ascertain the transanctions. The considerations governing the Court's decision on an application for grant of pre-arrest bail are materially different from that of a regular bail or for that matter, on an application seeking suspension of sentence, pending appeal before a higher Court. Besides, advantage of custodial interrogation for eliciting more and useful material cannot be lost sight of. Moreover, the grant of anticipatory bail is somewhat extraordinary in nature. In the facts and circumstances, this petition for grant of pre arrest bail is dimissed. February 9, 2011 (S.S. Saron) suresh Judge