Crl. Misc. No. M-31036 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-31036 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 09, 2011 Jaswant Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. B. S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Jaswant Singh (Patwari) has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.2 dated 24.08.2011, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short – the Act), registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Ferozepur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the accused demanded and accepted Rs.17,000/- as bribe from the complainant for entering Crl. Misc. No. M-31036 of 2011 2 mutation of inheritance of his father-in-law and also demanded and accepted Rs.1,600/- as bribe on the pretext of depositing the same as Government fee and for supplying copy of jamabandi. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in fact, petitioner was earlier prosecuted in FIR registered on 24.09.1997 under the Act, but was acquitted on 24.12.2002 in that case and thereupon, the petitioner filed civil suit claiming damages for his malicious prosecution. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 05.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) against Buta Singh – complainant of the said case and against Investigating Officer of the said case namely Sukhdev Singh – Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) (Vigilance) (since retired). It is contended that the petitioner has filed execution petition, wherein property of Sukhdev Singh – DSP (retired) has been ordered to be attached. It was also pointed out that the petitioner also filed criminal complaint (Annexure P-2) dated 09.12.2003, in which same Buta Singh and Sukhdev Singh have been ordered to be summoned as accused vide summoning order dated 20.08.2011 (Annexure P-3). It was accordingly argued that the instant FIR is result of the aforesaid litigation of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that application by the complainant had been made on 31.05.2010 and it was after inquiry that FIR was registered on 24.08.2011. It was also pointed out that the complainant's father-in-law died on 15.01.2010, but the petitioner Crl. Misc. No. M-31036 of 2011 3 entered the mutation of his inheritance on 01.01.2010 i.e. even before his death. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. In so far as the date of entering inheritance mutation is concerned, prima facie it appears to be clerical mistake because learned State counsel has read out from the copy of inheritance mutation that date of death of complainant's father-in-law is correctly mentioned in it as 15.01.2010. It would depict that mutation was entered sometime thereafter, but date was inadvertently written as 01.01.2010, which was obvious result of clerical error. From the documentary evidence on record placed by the petitioner, it is manifest that the petitioner was earlier prosecuted in a case under the Act, but was acquitted and the petitioner filed civil suit against complainant of that case and against two DSPs and other officials and the said suit was decreed against complainant of that case and against one DSP (since retired). Similarly, on criminal complaint filed by the petitioner, the same complainant and retired DSP have been summoned as accused. In the instant case, bribe amount of Rs.17,000/- was allegedly paid to the petitioner in January, 2010, whereas application by complainant was allegedly moved on 31.05.2010. Keeping in view all the circumstances, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case to extend Crl. Misc. No. M-31036 of 2011 4 the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions specified in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He shall join investigation as and when required by the police. Presently, the petitioner is directed to join investigation on 21.11.2011 at 10:00 A.M. and continue to do so as and when required by the police. November 09, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE