Crl. Misc. No. M-26846 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 26846 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 22, 2011 Shradhesh Chandra (S. Chandra) ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate, for the complainant. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.10 dated 27.8.2010, under Sections 7,13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that petitioner was enlarged on interim bail vide order dated 17.9.2010 and has already been enlarged on bail by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that co-accused, namely, Balraj Singh Nehra, Crl. Misc. No. M-26846 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Assistant Garrison Engineer (SDO) has suffered disclosure statement stating that he has accepted the bribe on behalf of the petitioner that is why petitioner is also implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that prior to the incident in question petitioner has recommended the cases of the complainant as well as the shadow witnesses to the higher authorities for black listing, that is why to take revenge, this false case has been planted upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant states that two bills of ` 3,00,000/ and ` 27,000/- were pending. Complainant approached the petitioner accused to clear the bills and petitioner directed him (complainant) to approach co-accused Balraj Singh Nehra, Assistant Garrison Engineer (SDO) saying that bills shall not be cleared in this manner. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab, on instructions from DSP Bhupinder Singh, has fairly stated that Vigilance Bureau has not prepared list of properties movable or immovable in the possession of the petitioner to make out the case against the petitioner under Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, Vigilance Bureau wants to investigate, by way of custodial interrogation of the petitioner, as to what are the properties in possession of the petitioner and what is the source to income to have these properties. Record reveals that petitioner was not arrested at the spot and only co-accused Balraj Singh Nehra, Assistant Garrison Engineer (SDO) was arrested at the spot and he has already been enlarged on regular bail. As to whether petitioner directed the complainant to go to co-accused Balraj Singh Nehra, Assistant Garrison Engineer (SDO) for clearance of the bills Crl. Misc. No. M-26846 of 2010 (O&M) 3 or not, is a matter which can only be looked into and considered during trial. However, custodial interrogation seems to be unjustified at this stage. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharastra and others reported in 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 126” has held that irrational and indiscriminate arrest must be avoided. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. Order dated 17.9.2010 is made absolute, subject to the limitations provided under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is clarified that petitioner shall participate in the investigation as and when he is required. (Alok Singh) Judge March 22, 2011 Anand