CRM-M No.9184 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.9184 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.8.2009 Kuldip Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.P.S.Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.AG Punjab for the respondent/State. Mr.Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(Oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.37 dated 10.3.2009 under Section 7/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at P.S. Payal, District Ludhiana. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of Harwinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh sons of Ran Singh, residents of village Chomo. It is alleged in the FIR that Hari Singh, uncle of the complainant died on 23.4.2008 bequeathing his property by executing a registered Will dated 18.11.1988. The complainant had approached the petitioner for the purpose of entering the mutation of the land, which had been bequeathed by testator Hari Singh in their favour but the petitioner demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.35,000/- and out of which Rs.25,000/- has been paid. The petitioner then brought to the notice of the CRM-M No.9184 of 2009 (O&M) -2- complainant that since the land is encumbered under the bank loan, therefore, its clearance certificate is required. It was also brought to the notice of the complainant that if bank clearance certificate is not given then mutation cannot be entered. Complainant produced bank clearance certificate but at that time the petitioner again demanded Rs.10,000/- which led to the filing of the complaint. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had approached the learned Special Judge, Ludhiana for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed on 25.3.2009. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is a flaw in the procedure and the petitioner has been framed in this case due to political rivalry. It is submitted that as per instructions issued on 7.1.2005 by Additional Director General of Police Crime, Punjab no case should be registered on their own level by the police officials/employees except by DSP posted in the Vigilance Department or official of the higher rank. He further submits that preliminary enquiry should be conducted before registration of the case. As against this, counsel for the State assisted by the counsel for the complainant, has submitted that it is provided in the FIR itself that the case has been registered after the approval of Sr.Superintendent of Police, Khanna. It is also submitted that in compliance of the instructions dated 7.1.2005, the matter was sent back to the Vigilance Department but the Director Vigilance returned the file to local police on 22.4.2009 for the purpose of investigation. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation, almost 46 calls have been detected from a particular mobile number owned by one Devinder Singh, who has made the calls to the CRM-M No.9184 of 2009 (O&M) -3- petitioner between 2.1.2009 to 7.3.2009. It is also submitted that the petitioner is facing trial in two other cases, namely, FIR No.64 dated 17.12.2008 under Sections 452/447/380 IPC at Police Station Divn.No.6, Ludhiana and FIR No.48 dated 29.8.2001 under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by the counsel for the parties. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence as well as antecedents of the petitioner, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, therefore, the petition is hereby dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 17.8.2009 Judge Meenu