Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajitpal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 April, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053533
CRM-M-16878-2024 1 2024:PHHC:053533
202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-16878-2024
Date of decision: 19.04.2024
Ajitpal Singh .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present :- Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
This is the second petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.46 dated
06.05.2023, under Sections 409, 120-B of IPC, Section {13(1)(A) read
with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 added later on}
at Police Station Sadar Raikot, District Ludhiana (Rural).
Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the FIR was
registered after an enquiry of Complaint No.999-PC-1 dated 04.04.2023
filed by Daljit Singh J.E. Sub Division Bassian Police Station Sadar
Raikot, Ajitpal Singh Lineman and Chhinderpal Singh (SDO). It has been
alleged that the accused in connivance with each other had drawn the
electric goods for Rs. 5,65,37,355/- from the outlet store of PSPCL,
Jagraon and misappropriated the same. It was alleged that Daljit Singh JE
posted at Sub Division Bassian had withdrawn the goods worth of Rs.7.30
crores from PSPCL Store, Jagraon but despite various letters having been
written to the Daljit Singh JE, he did not submit the account details. Thus,
it was found that he had embezzled goods in which Ajitpal Singh
Lineman, Gurvinder Singh CHB and Mushtaq Ali Driver were also
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053533
CRM-M-16878-2024 2 2024:PHHC:053533
involved. It has been alleged that as per the office order No.14 dated
28.10.2021 Ajitpal Singh Lineman was posted as Assistant of Daljit Singh
JE. Ajitpal Singh Lineman used to keep the details of the goods
withdrawn from the store and other works and he used to withdraw the
goods from the store. Thus, on the basis of the various allegations, the FIR
was registered and the investigation commenced. Apprehending his arrest,
the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ludhiana praying for grant of anticipatory bail. However, on hearing
counsel for the parties and perusing the record, learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana declined the same vide his order dated
17.05.2023. Being aggrieved, petitioner earlier approached this Court by
way of filing CRM-M-26719-2023. However, after arguing at length,
learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the petition and
hence, the same was permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order
dated 25.05.2023. Thus, the petitioner has again approached this Court by
way of filing the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this
Court that the earlier petition was withdrawn and the same was not
decided on merits. He has submitted that after withdrawal of that petition,
department constituted a committee which gave its report dated
23.08.2023 and no complicity of the petitioner was found in the report.
This Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance to file
his affidavit and the same has been filed before this Court. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation against the
petitioner is that petitioner was posted as Assistant with the main accused
Daljit Singh J.E. and he was required to prepare the account by taking
details from Daljit Singh. He has submitted that Daljit Singh JE had
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053533
CRM-M-16878-2024 3 2024:PHHC:053533
already been arrested and later he has been released on bail. It is submitted
by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working as Lineman and
neither he was authorized to issue any article from the store nor to receive
the same. He has submitted that the petitioner was asked to assist
co-accused Daljit Singh JE in preparation of the accounts and thus, he
prepared the accounts giving details of the goods issued whereas the
details were to be submitted by Daljit Singh JE to the Department. It is
submitted that the goods were entrusted to Daljit Singh JE and the
recovery is also to be effected from him. He has submitted that no prima
facie case is made out against the petitioner and thus, he deserves to be
granted anticipatory bail.
Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that
during investigation co-accused J.E. Daljit Singh was arrested on
08.05.2023 wherein he suffered a disclosure statement and he got
recovered electrical goods amounting to Rs.25,97,128/- on different dates
from different places. It is submitted that at that time the said electrical
goods were in custody of Daljit Singh J.E., present petitioner Ajitpal
Singh Lineman and SDO Chhinderpal Singh for installation in different
Villages of Sub Division Bassian. It is submitted that during investigation,
the statement of various officers of the department were recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and it was found that electrical goods/material
amounting to Rs.7.30 crore were withdrawn from PSPCL Store Jagraon
and the accused including the petitioner had misappropriated the electrical
goods amounting to Rs.5,56,47,822/- and during investigation, offence
under Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 12(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 was added in the case on 23.10.2023. He submits
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053533
CRM-M-16878-2024 4 2024:PHHC:053533
that the investigation is entrusted to the Vigilance Bureau. The complicity
of the petitioner as submitted is prima facie established as the petitioner
was attached with co-accused J.E. Daljit Singh and he was assigned the
duty to look after the electric goods issued from the store and for the work
to be done regarding installation of the electric goods at the places where
same were to be installed. He submits that it has been found during
investigation that the petitioner had illegally used the Official ID
No.238125 of Pritpal Singh J.E. (retired) by using his own Mobile
No.96461-11739 because after the retirement of Pritpal Singh J.E. his
official ID was to be closed but instead of closing the said ID of Pritpal
Singh, it was deliberately used by petitioner Ajitpal Singh Lineman. He
withdrew the electric goods/material from the store by forging the
signatures of J.E. on store requisition/issue note (S.R.) slips. The message
of withdrawing the articles went to the petitioner's mobile number rather
than J.E.'s mobile number because the petitioner had filled his own mobile
number in the said ID. Thus, no official came to know as to who had
withdrawn the articles from the store. He submits that during investigation
specimen signatures of Daljit Singh J.E. were obtained and the same were
sent to FSL for comparison. Thus, specimen signatures of the petitioner
are also required and hence, his custodial interrogation is necessary in the
present case for the fair investigation. He has submitted that raids were
conducted by the investigating agency on 06.01.2024, 09.02.2024,
28.02.2024, 15.03.2024 but the petitioner could not be arrested till date as
he is evading his arrest. He has submitted that the accused is involved in
the scam amounting to Rs.5,56,47,822/- and thus, there being no ground
for grant of anticipatory bail, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053533
CRM-M-16878-2024 5 2024:PHHC:053533
Heard. On hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is apparent that the FIR has been registered on the basis of the
enquiry conducted and as per the allegations, petitioner in connivance
with the co-accused had illegally withdrawn electric goods from the store
amounting to Rs.5,56,47,822/-. Co-accused Daljit Singh J.E. was arrested
and thereafter, he was granted bail. The investigation is already in
progress and the allegations against the petitioner are specific. The
petitioner was attached with J.E. Daljit Singh. It has been revealed in the
investigation that the petitioner had illegally used the official ID
No.238125 of Pritpal Singh J.E. (retired) by using his own Mobile
number. The details of the withdrawal thus, was coming on the mobile
number of the petitioner as Pritpal Singh J.E. had already retired. The
specimen signature of Daljit Singh J.E. has already been taken and sent to
the FSL whereas that of the petitioner could not be taken as he could not
be arrested till date.
For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory
parameters are given under Section 438(1) Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-
"Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:-
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be
arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable
offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of
Session for a direction under this section that in the event of
such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may,
after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following
factors, namely:-
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to
whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on
conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable
offence;
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053533
CRM-M-16878-2024 6 2024:PHHC:053533
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of
injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so
arrested,
Either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim
order for the grant of anticipatory bail."
As per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, while
granting anticipatory bail, the Court is to maintain a balance between the
individual liberty and the interest of society. However, the interest of the
society would also prevail upon the right of personal liberty. The relevant
part of the judgment is as follows:-
31.In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed
accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering
the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the
object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by
having him arrested, a direction for the release of the
applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would
generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely,
considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking
advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee
from justice, such an order would not be made. But the
converse of these propositions is not necessarily true.
That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable
rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the
proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala
fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted
if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There
are several other considerations, too numerous to
enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with
the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail.
The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the
context of the events likely to lead to the making of the
charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's
presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053533
CRM-M-16878-2024 7 2024:PHHC:053533
apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and
"the larger interests of the public or the state" are some of
the considerations which the court has to keep in mind
while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The
relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State
v. Captain Jagjit Singh (1962) 3 SCR 622, which, though,
was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds
to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount
consideration to remember that the freedom of the
individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as
it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person
seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the
presumption of innocence. He is willing to
submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of
conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in
consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be
enlarged on bail.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997)
7SCC 187, held as under:-
6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-
oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced
with a favorable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a
case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person
is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful
informations and also materials which would have been
concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the
suspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is
interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition
would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the
custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the
person being subjected to third-degree methods need not
be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced
by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to
presume that responsible police officers would conduct
themselves in a responsible manner and that those
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053533
CRM-M-16878-2024 8 2024:PHHC:053533
entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not
conduct themselves as offenders.
There is no gainsaying that this is the second petition filed by
the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail. The earlier one was
already allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order
dated 25.05.2023.
Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled,
it is apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie
established. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage
would scuttle the ongoing investigation.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. State
of Tamil Nadu, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 843 has held that successive
anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained on specious
ground of 'Changed Circumstances'.
In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner does not qualify for the grant of anticipatory bail and the same
is hereby dismissed on both counts i.e. on maintainability being second
petition as well as on merits. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
19.04.2024 JUDGE
m. sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
