CRM-M 2878 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Pun jab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on 04.11.2009. Manohar Lal -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.R.C.Dogra,Sr.Advocate, with Ms.Balwinder Kaur, Advocate,for the petitioner Mrs.Rajni Gupta, Addl,A.G.Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: CRM-M 44307 of 2009 Allowed. The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.4 dated 19.1.2009 under Section 7 (13) (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and subsequently added Sections 186, 224,323,332,353,148,149 IPC registered at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar through Vigilance Bureau,Hoshiarpur. The allegations against the petitioner are that he demanded Rs.2000/- as bribe from the complainant in lieu of allotting registration number for his vehicle T.V.S. Motor Cycle Star which ends with digit 86. CRM-M 2878 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The complainant alongwith Rashpal Singh and Amarjit Singh made a complaint to Vigilance Department and presented currency notes of Rs.2000/- currency notes. It is alleged that a trap was laid and the complainant was sent to the petitioner along-with currency notes worth Rs.2000/-smeared with phenolphthalein powder, followed by shadow witness and other members of the police party. Rs.2000/- were handed over to the complainant and on receiving signal from the shadow witness, the police party had apprehended the petitioner, but due to intervention of Surinder Gupta, Anju Bala, Tarsem Singh and Kuldip Rai, who were the employees of S.D.M Office, and another 15/20 persons who had encircled the police party, the petitioner managed to flee from the spot. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below, which was dismissed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide his order dated 27.1.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been allowed interim bail by this Court on 16.2.2009 and has joined the investigation. It is also submitted that an enquiry was held by Addl.D.C., Hoshiarpur, in which the the petitioner has been found to be innocent. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that in view of Notification of Punjab Government No.19/1/98-4 V (1) 3900- 4059 dated 6 March,2000, no parallel enquiry can be initiated during the pendency of investigation by the Vigilance Authorities. Therefore, enquiry conducted by Addl.D.C. Hoshiarpur, has no value in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that shadow witness has not been heard during the course of CRM-M 2878 of 2009 (O&M) 3 enquiry. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the said Notification, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the State, the Vigilance Department shall continue to enquire into complaints against non-gazetted employee but ordinarily the concerned Administrative Department will be responsible to look into complaints against non-gazetted officials and take action thereon. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and after having perused the record with their assistance, I have found that this is a case where custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required as not only the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been registered against the petitioner, but also a case under the provision of I.P.C has been registered against him. So, at this stage, report of Addl. D.C. cannot be said to be a final word because the investigation is at the initial stage. In view of the above, the present bail petition is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Nothing observed herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case by this Court. 04.11.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge