Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajdeep Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh on 28 September, 2022
CRM-M-20787-2021 (O&M) (1)
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20787-2021 (O&M)
Reserved on: 23.09.2022
Pronounced on: 28.09.2022
Rajdeep Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate and
Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev Anand, AAP, U.T., Chandigarh.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.
By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks
grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 63 dated
02.03.2021 under Sections 452, 331, 344, 365, 386, 419, 420,
465, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 477, 120-B IPC (challan
presented under Sections 452, 331, 344, 365, 386, 419, 420,
465, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 477, 120-B IPC, 166, 201, 218,
328 IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Sector-39,
Chandigarh.
Mr. R.S. Rai, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for
the petitioner would submit that the FIR in this case was
registered on 02.03.2021; the challan was presented on
29.04.2021; supplementary challan was presented on
06.08.2021 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act;
1 of 6
CRM-M-20787-2021 (O&M) (2)
that charges against the petitioner have been framed on
28.01.2022 only under Sections 166 and 218 IPC; under
Sections 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with
Section 120-B IPC, whereas the charges framed under Sections
8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, are against co-
accused Sanjeev Mahajan. It is yet further submitted that the
charge has not been framed against the petitioner under any
punishing Section; that the petitioner has been in custody since
15.03.2021; that in any case, in order to bring home the guilt
on the part of the petitioner, the charges ought to have been
framed either under Section 13(1) or under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act; that there are no such charges
framed; that though the prosecution had filed the challan under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, yet
the charges have not been framed under any of the said
Sections and that there being no effective charge(s) against the
petitioner, his further incarceration, is legally unsustainable.
Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that
co-accused Daljit Singh Rubbal, was granted interim bail by the
trial Court, vide order dated 21.05.2021; that the bail of the
said accused was conceded by the prosecution with an oblique
motive to frame the petitioner; that after his release, said Daljit
Rubbal made a statement on 24.05.2021, to the effect that he
had, at the instance of co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan, given a
bribe of Rs.5 Lakh to the petitioner in the year 2018; that thus,
the first version against the petitioner surfaced only on
24.05.2021; that the charge sheet was accordingly, filed against
the petitioner on 29.04.2021; that the supplementary charge
2 of 6
CRM-M-20787-2021 (O&M) (3)
sheet, by adding Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
was filed against the petitioner on 6.08.2021.
It is further submitted that in this case, no recovery
was effected from the petitioner and if the allegations of the
prosecution were to be taken to have any substance, then
charge under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
ought to have been framed against him as well. It is further
submitted that the petitioner is not a beneficiary of any of the
transactions relating to House No. 340, Sector 37-A,
Chandigarh (the house belonging to the mother of Rahul
Mehta). It is pointed out that co-accused Satpal Dagar, Manish
Gupta, Saurabh Gupta and Arvind Singla, have already been
granted the concession of bail by the Coordinate Benches of
this Court.
Mr. Rai, further submits that as per the provisions
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a bribe taker and bribe
giver, both are accused and therefore, Daljit Singh Rubbal, who
allegedly gave bribe to the petitioner, should also be booked.
On the other hand, Mr. Rajeev Anand, APP, U.T.,
Chandigarh, while vehemently opposing the prayer for bail,
would submit that the petitioner is the kingpin of the entire
crime; that he had hatched the entire conspiracy with the co-
accused so as to usurp and grab the prime property (i.e. House
No. 340, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh) belonging to the mother of
Rahul Mehta; that initially, when some mischievous elements
were noticed by Pandit Sita Ram Rattan (former SSP), he had
given a complaint to the Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh to
3 of 6
CRM-M-20787-2021 (O&M) (4)
the effect that Rahul Mehta, was being tortured and harassed
by co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan and others, but the petitioner
being incharge of the Police Station, did not take any action
against the culprits; that later on as the incident unfolded, it
was revealed that Rahul Mehta, went missing at the behest of
the co-accused; that though the petitioner had recorded a DDR
on 14.01.2017 regarding the missing of Rahul Mehta, yet as the
entire Police Station was under his control and supervision, no
efforts were made to locate the whereabouts of Rahul Mehta.
Mr. Anand argues that had the petitioner taken timely and swift
action into the matter, the entire occurrence, could have been
averted and that as a matter of fact, the petitioner had not only
failed to discharge his duties, but he had rather misused his
official position and that all the co-accused had executed the
entire occurrence at his behest and protection.
It is yet further submitted that one Amit Gupta, who
runs a Chemist Shop, and whom Rahul Mehta, used to visit
and share his things, had been picked up at the instance of the
petitioner and other co-accused; that he had been tortured by
the police and given a third degree treatment on the allegations
of having kidnapped Rahul Mehta. It is, thus, submitted that
the said modus operandi, is the brain-child of the petitioner,
who had been hobnobbing and conspiring with the co-accused
to usurp the house of the mother of Rahul Gupta.
On the point of non-recovery of the bribe amount
from the petitioner, the learned APP, would argue that Daljit
Singh Rubbal in his statement had specifically pointed out the
4 of 6
CRM-M-20787-2021 (O&M) (5)
mode and manner of handing over the bribe to the petitioner
and, therefore, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit of the
fact that no recovery was effected from him.
It is yet further submitted that Rahul Mehta, is a
vulnerable witness; that the defence wants to term the said
witness as mentally unstable and in this regard, an application
moved by the defence, was also declined by the trial Court and
that the deposition of Rahul Mehta, is yet to be recorded by the
trial Court and in case, the petitioner is released on bail, he
would make all out efforts to either win over or tamper with the
evidence.
While referring to the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment
in Jagjeet Singh and others vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu &
Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 453, it is argued that while
considering the rights of an accused for bail, it must be ensured
that the victim' or the State are not denuded of their right to
oppose such a prayer.
Mr. Rai, vehemently counters the submission made
by Mr. Anand and submits that as a matter of fact, the DDR on
14.01.2017 was recorded by some junior non Gazetted police
officer and not the petitioner and that, therefore, the petitioner
cannot be said to not have taken any action in the matter,
deliberately or purposely.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is conceded position that the charges against the
petitioner have been framed under Sections 166 and 218 IPC
5 of 6
CRM-M-20787-2021 (O&M) (6)
and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
read with Section 120-B IPC, whereas the charges framed
under Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
are against co-accused Sanjeev Mahajan. The petitioner's role
as a key conspirator in the matter is to be determined during
the trial, on the basis of evidence led and the same cannot be
either gone into or adjudicated upon by this Court, in the
present bail matter. The petitioner has been in custody for
15.03.2021. Co-accused Satpal Dagar, Manish Gupta, Saurabh
Gupta and Arvind Singla, have already been granted the
concession of regular bail.
Though learned counsel for the U.T., Chandigarh,
lays emphasis on the non-examination of Rahul Mehta and
apprehends that if released on bail, the petitioner would make
all out efforts to either win over the said witness or tamper with
the evidence, yet this Court has been informed that said Rahul
Mehta, is police protection.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the case of
either side, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing
surety/bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
28.09.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
ds JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
