Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parminder Singh Garcha vs State Of Punjab on 16 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004CRILJ75
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: Viney Mittal
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J.
1. The present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner Parminder Singh Garcha. A prayer has been made for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 68 dated Oct. 18, 2002 registered under Sections 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar, District Jalandar.
2. At the outset the contents of the FIR may be noticed as follows :--
"S.H.O. P.S. Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar.
3. It has been learnt from the reliable sources that in the year 2001-2002 various Education Programmes run under the Distirict Education Programmes by the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, former Technical Education Minister Shri Jagdish Singh Garcha, former Vice Chancellor, P.T.U. H.S. Gurum and present Director (Outreach) P.T.U., Jalandhar Shri Amarjit Singh Grewal conspired and kept interest of P.T.U. aside and for giving benefits to their favourite prepared a Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) in this manner whereby financial loss is caused to P.T.U. and financial gain is accrued to other service provider specially firm named Symantec Infoways, New Delhi in a direct or indirect manner to Shri Parminder Singh Garcha son of former Tech-nical Education Shri Jagdish Singh Gracha, P.T.U. had suffered loss of about Rs. 8,77,65,5446/-, Rs. 2, 70,000/- and Rs. 4,19,000/-, total of which comes to about Rs. 11.51,84,446/-. Total duration of Memorandum of Understanding is 5 years. In this manner, the financial loss will incur more in coming 5 years. This has also been learnt that Symante Infoways, New Delhi failed in breach of their M.O.U. P.T.U. in unapporved and illegal manner gathered money i.e. under M.O.U. for opening study Centre in A Class City. Rs. 2.5 lacs were fixed to be charged maximum but Shri Parminder Singh Garcha while signing M.O.U. for A Class City has depicted in agreement for charging Rs. 3.5 lacs from Riclitic Computers. The validity of M.O.U. signed by this firm with P.T.U. is for 5 years i.e. from May 2001 to May 2006 whereas firm has signed M.O.U. with Riclitic Computers upto the year 2007. Former Technical Education Minister for his son Shri Parminder Singh Garcha earlier made benami service provider on the name of Shri G.P.S. Dhaliwal in a conspiracy with Shri H.S Gurum and Shri Amarjit Singh Grewal. In this way, they committed fraud for Shri Parminder Singh Garcha. This has also been learnt that former Minister, Shri Jagdish Singh Garcha, Shri H.S. Gurum and Shri Amarjit Singh Grewal conspired during their term without giving any advertisement and without holding any test and appointed 95 employees in the University. Out of which 34% belong to the Constituency of Shri Jagdish Singh Garcha, former Minister. Shri Jagdish Singh Garcha and Shri H.S. Gurum apponted Shri Amarjit Singh Grewal without any educational qualification against Punjab Technical University Act by creating a post of Director (Outreach). They also misused their official position by giving extension for one year. In this manner, Shri Jagdish Singh Garcha, former Technical Education Minister, Punjab, Shri H.S. Gurum, former Vice Chancellor, Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, Shri Amarjit Singh Grewal, Director (Outreach) P.T.U. Jalandhar and Parminder Singh Garcha son of former Technical Education Minister, Punjab Shri Jagdish Singh Garcha have committed offence under Sections 420/120B, I.P.C. and 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2), P.C. Act, 1988. After the registration of the case under these sections, copy of F.I.R. be sent to me. I will myself investigate the case. Ruqa is sent by hand through C-2 Amrik Singh No. 838 (KPT). Sd/- D.S.P. P.S. Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar, 18-10-2002." 3. The petitioner has averred in the present petition that he is son of Jagdish Singh Garcha, who had been a Minister for Technical Education in the State of Punjab from the year 1999 till 2002 in the Ministry headed by Sh. Parkash Singh Badal and who was an Akali MLA. The petitioner has further maintained that he has been involved in the case only becasuse of the fact that his father was an Akali MLA and was a Minister in the earlier Government in the State of Punjab. He has also denied his involvement in any criminal case. Various averments have been made in the petition to state that in fact the contents of the FIR were false and that various false cases were being registered against the former Ministers belonging to Siromani Akali Dal on account of political vendetta.
4. The petitioner has further maintained that for the appointment of various service providers, applications and proposals from enterpreneurs were invited by Punjab Technical University through newspapers/advertisements. The applicants were interviewed by the duly appointed panel/Committee. Further the students who were enrolled with the various education programmes used to pay their fees directly to the University and no fee was collected by any of the service providers.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid averments and pleas of mala fides and political vendetta a prayer for pre arrest bail has been made by the petitioner.
6. Notice of the present bail application was issued to the respondents. In pursuance of the aforesaid notice, the respondents have put in appearance and have con-tested the various arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner.
7. I have heard Sh. Baldev Singh learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sh. K.S. Nalwa, learned counsel appearing for the Special Public Prosecutor for Vigilance Punjab and Sh. Mansur Ali, learned Deputy Adovacate General, Punjab for the respondents and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.
8. Shri. Baldev Singh, the learned Senior counsel has vehemently argued that the case against the petitioner was apparantely the outcome of political vendetta and even from the perusal of the FIR no case, in fact was made out against him. The learned Senior counsel has taken me through the various documents to show that the service providers were appointed by the Punjab Technical University directly on the recommendation of the panel appointed by the University and the petitioner or any other person named in the FIR had no connection with such an appointment. It has further been submitted by the learned Senior counsel that in fact no money was ever directly received by any one of the service providers or the petitioner from the students, inasmuch as, anyone of the enrolled student with the University was required to pay the necessary fee directly to the University.
9. The learned counsel further maintains that the entire case against the petitioner was in fact based upon documentary evidence and as such neither any recovery was required to be made from the petitioner nor the case required any custodial interrogation and as such it was a fit case where the Court should exercise its powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issue the necessary directions for pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioner.
10. On the other hand, Shri Mansur Ali, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, with equal vehemence, has opposed the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that in fact the petitioner was involved in a big scandal whereby the Punjab Technical University had suffered a huge loss of crores of rupees. According to the learned Deputy Advocate General, the petitioner along with his other co-accused had appointed the various service providers beyond the memorandum of understanding between the University and M/s. Symantec Infoways, New Delhi in an unapproved and illegal manner. In this manner huge sums were collected from various persons by illegally and unauthorizedly giving them the appointments as service providers. The accused persons had not only collected the huge money behind the back of the University wholly unauthorizedly, but had also issued false and fabricated certificates to various institutions. During the course of arguments, Shri Mansur Ali has produced before the Court one such certificate issued in favour of one institute known as College of Advance Information Techonology, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The aforesaid certificate is shown to have been signed by one Amarjit Singh Grewal. The learned counsel has also produced a report dated December 12, 2002 from the Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab to show that the aforesaid signatures of Amarjit Singh Grewal on the aforesaid certificate were forged. On the basis of the aforesaid document, it has been contended that numerous such documents which were forged and fabricated had been created by the accused and to come to a proper conclusion, the investigating agency required the custodial interrogation of the petitioner.
11. Shri Mansur Ali, has also brought to the notice of this Court that the present petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed offender vide an order dated March 24, 2003 and has contended that on that basis alone, the petitioner was not entitled to any concession of anticipatory bail. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Deputy Advocate General, has relied upon certain observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jagtar Singh v. Satendra Kaur alias Bhavana Grover, in SLP (Criminal) No. 1403/2002 vide order dated Sept. 2, 2002 as follows :--
"The order passed by the High Court appears to be usual one. Learned counsel for the State submits that at present the respondents - applicants are absconding. Normally, when the accused are absconding there is no question of granting anticipatory or regular bail. Admittedly, neither the High Court nor the Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail in this matter. Hence, it would be open to the Investigating Officer to arrest the respondents."
12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival pleas made on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties. In my considered view, no case for the grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
13. Without commending upon the correctness or otherwise, of the allegations in the FIR, it is apparent that the allegations in the FIR pertained to conspiracy, cheating and causing wrongful loss to the Pubjab Technical University and also unauthorisedly running the various centres. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents with regard to the foreging of the certificates and other documents and the report dated Dec. 12, 2002 by the Director Forensic Laboratory, showing that one of the certificates purported to have been signed by Amarjit Singh Grewal was a forged document, prima facie shows that the Investigating Agency requires further investigation in the matter.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a few judgments rendered by this Court such as (1998) 4 Rec Cri R 538, (1999) 3 Rec Cri 321, (2001) 3 Rec Cri R 137 and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gurbax Singh Sibia v. State of Punjab, 1980 Cri LJ 1125 : (AIR 1980 SC 1632) to contend that where the case was based upon certain documents already in possession of the Investigating Agency, then the police custody was not required and in such a case the concession of anticipatory bail should be made available to the accused.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State, Represented by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 3 Rec Cri R 268 : ( 1997 Cri LJ 4414), to contend that where the charge against an Ex-Minister was of amassing wealth by means of corruption, then in such a situation, the custodial interrogation should be allowed. The following observations made by the Supreme Court in Anil Sharma's case (supra) may be noticed with advantage :--
"We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations of 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 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 entrusted with the task of disinterring would not conduct themselves as offenders.
16. In my considered view, the observations made by the Supreme Court in Anil Sharma's case (1997 Cri LJ 4414) (Supra) apply on all fours to the facts of the present case. The petitioner cannot claim that since all the documents necessary for investigation were already with the Investigating Agency, therefore, his custodial interrogation was not required.
17. At this stage it may also be noticed that Shri Baldev Singh, learned Senior counsel has brought to my notice that three of the co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted a regular bail by this Court. This fact is not disputed by Shri Mansur Ali. However, he points out that since the petitioner has been evading arrest, therefore, the investigation against him could not be completed and as such for completing the aforesaid investigation, he was required to be interrogated. Sh. Mansur Ali has also brought to my notice that another co-accused of the petitioner namely J.P.S. Dhaliwal, who had also applied for anticipatory bail through Cri. M. No. 31702-M of 2003 has been declined the bail vide an order dated July 22, 2003 passed by this Court.
18. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is dismissed.