In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-1040 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:22.1.2010 Gurtej Singh Brar .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 168 Indian Penal Code. The allegations against the petitioner are that during the check period from 1.7.2001 to 30.6.2006 his income was found to be Rs.1,46,66,008/- and the expenses were Rs.1,69,16,315/-. In this way, an amount of Rs.22,39,307/- remained unaccounted for. The petitioner was working as Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Bathinda. It is submitted that the Aklia Educational Research Society was set-up which started running Aklia College of Education for Women since July 2005. Ashwani Kumar Jindal was its founder Chairman. His son Rakesh Kumar and the petitioner were members of the Committee. The Cr. Misc. No.M-1040 of 2010 [2] petitioner was elected Chairman of the said Aklia Educational Research Society in May 2006. It is alleged that Ashwani Kumar Jindal took ill of it and he had resigned from the primary membership of the Society. The FIR in the case is alleged to be on the basis of false and frivolous allegations made by the opposite group. Learned senior counsel has referred to the income chart (Annexure-P.6) and the expenditure chart prepared by the Vigilance Bureau. It is submitted that the income chart shows that the petitioner had an income of Rs.1,46,77,008/- and in the expenditure chart there are expenses for an amount of Rs.1,69,16,315/-. However, in column No.9 of the expenditure chart (vernacular copy) wherein Rs.43 Lacs have been shown to be expenses of the petitioner, it is submitted in fact, have wrongly been shown. It is submitted that the said amount of Rs.43 Lacs is mentioned in the expenditure as paid by the petitioner whereas the same had been paid out of the funds of Aklia Educational Society. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that during the preliminary inquiry that was conducted, the petitioner of his own had given in writing that an agreement dated 31.5.2006 was entered into with Ashwani Kumar Jindal in terms of which it was agreed that the petitioner till 15.9.2006 would pay to Ashwani Kumar Jindal a sum of Rs.43 Lacs. Besides, break-up of the amount of Rs.43 Lacs which has been prepared by the petitioner in his own hand has also been given by him during the course of preliminary inquiry. Therefore, it is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain the income Cr. Misc. No.M-1040 of 2010 [3] of the petitioner and to explain the unaccounted expenses of Rs.22,39,307/-, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. In case the petitioner surrenders before the Vigilance Bureau within two days from the receipt of certified copy of this order, his application for regular bail shall be considered by the Special Judge within one day after the period of police remand, if any. January 22, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*