CRM No. M-27870 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-27870 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.10.2009 Karnail Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 13 (1) (c) & 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Jandiala Guru, Amritsar, vide FIR No.188 dated 29th August, 2009. The allegation against the petitioner is that while working as Junior Engineer in Punjab State Electricity Board, he took illegal gratification of Rs.52,000/- from the complainant for the purpose of giving him an illegal tubewell connection of 5 H.P. electric motor. The said illegal connection was later detected by the authorities. Thereafter, it was disconnected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case at the behest of in-laws CRM No. M-27870 of 2009 2 of his daughter. According to the counsel, the complainant was a distant relative of in-laws of his daughter and his daughter had been turned out of her matrimonial home due to demand of dowry by her in-laws. Due to this, a complaint was lodged on behalf of his daughter with the police on 15th June, 2009. Subsequently, two other applications/complainants dated 28th July, 2009 and 13th August, 2009 were also submitted to the police by the petitioner and his daughter. On 15th August, 2009 an FIR bearing No.336, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC was registered against in-laws of the daughter of the petitioner. According to the counsel, it is due to this reason that the petitioner has been falsely implicated at the behest of Balwant Singh, who belongs to the same village, where daughter of the petitioner is married and is a distant relative of her in-laws. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail. He submits that entire story enacted by the petitioner is only to save himself from the corruption case lodged against him. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record annexed to the petition. The only ground agitated by the counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea for pre-arrest bail is that he has been falsely implicated in the case. According to him, the complainant acted on the behest of in-laws of daughter of the petitioner. A perusal of FIR shows that the complainant alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs.52,000/- CRM No. M-27870 of 2009 3 from him for giving him illegal tubewell connection of 5 H.P. The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, after taking the money, arranged the extension wires, erected the poles and got the connection activated. On checking, conducted by the department, the connection was found to be illegal and was thus, disconnected. Due to disconnection, the complainant was put to great harassment. He alleged that since connection to the motor was deactivated, his children and cattle remained without water for ten days. He, thus, complained against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I do not find that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The only argument advanced by counsel that the petitioner has been implicated falsely in the case at the behest of in-laws of his daughter, is of no relevance at this stage, particularly when there are allegations of corruption against the petitioner. I, thus, do not find any merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE October 15, 2009 'rajpal'