Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 30 October, 2012
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Misc. No.M.29411 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M.29411 of 2012
Date of decision 30 .10.2012.
Amandeep Kaur
...... Petitioner.
versus
State of Punjab
...... Respondent.
Criminal Misc.No.M. 28813 of 2012
Paramajit Singh
...... Petitioner.
versus
State of Punjab
...... Respondent.
Crl. Misc. No. M. 30068 of 2012
Rajiv Sood
...... Petitioner.
versus
State of Punjab
...... Respondent.
Crl. Misc. No. M. 32087 of 2012
Rajinder Singh
Criminal Misc. No.M.29411 of 2012 2
...... Petitioner.
versus
State of Punjab
...... Respondent.
Crl. Misc. No. M. 32099 of 2012
Harminder Singh
...... Petitioner.
versus
State of Punjab
...... Respondent.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
Present : Mr. A.P.S.Guliani Advocate and
Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate and
Mr. T.S.Sangha, Senior Advocate with
Mr. J.S.Lalli, Advocate and
Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate,
for the petitioners
Mr. P.S.Grewal, DAG, Punjab
Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate for the complainant.
K.C.PURI, J.
By this common order, I intend to dispose of Criminal Misc. No. M. 29411 of 2012 titled as Amandeep Kaur versus State of Punjab ; Criminal Misc. No. M. 28813 of 2012 titled as Paramjit Singh versus State of Punjab ; Crl. Misc. No. M. 30068 of 2012 titled as Rajiv Sood versus State of Punjab ; Crl. Misc. No. M. 30087 of 2012 titled as Rajinder Singh Gopi versus State of Punjab and Crl. Misc. No. M. 32099 of 2012 titled as Harminder Singh versus State of Punjab as these petitions are outcome of the one incident. For convenience facts are being taken from Criminal Criminal Misc. No.M.29411 of 2012 3 Misc. No. M. 29411 of 2012.
2. Petitioners have filed five petitions under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short - Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.180 dated 18.08.2012 under Sections 120-B, 166, 167, 186, 195, 218, 332, 353 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short - the IPC) and Sections 7/13(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station Phase-1, S.A.S. Nagar Mohali District Mohali.
3. Shri H.S.Sandhu, IPS, Inspector General of Police, Punjab and Shri Mansavi Kumar, IAS, Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab conducted a detailed inquiry in respect of allegations of wrong trap against Ranjit Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer.
4. Briefly stated that on 23.3.2011 two trucks were apprehended by Ranjit Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer and out of those trucks one was released and the other truck was not released as there was no requisite document in respect of sale of that. Complainant Rajinder Singh Gopi made a statement to the Vigilance Department and on 29.3.2011 that Ranjit Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer received Rs.2,50,000/- whereas another employee is stated to have received Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification. Ranjit Singh was arrested and granted bail on 20.4.2011 but he committed suicide on 22.4.2011.
5. The allegation against the petitioners are that they have maneuvered a false case against Ranjit Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer. It is further alleged that after the payment of Rs.8,00,000/- to Amandeep Kaur, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) and her Reader, a further sum of Criminal Misc. No.M.29411 of 2012 4 Rs.50lacs were demanded by Amandeep Kaur, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), which compelled Ranjit Singh, ETO to commit suicide. Amandeep Kaur was heading the raiding party whereas Rajinder Singh Gopi was the complainant in FIR No.2 dated 29.3.2011 under Sections 7, 8, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Ranjit Singh ETO. Rajiv Sood is stated to be the business partner of passport along with Rajinder Singh Gopi. Harminder Singh petitioner-applicant is the Reader of Amandeep Kaur, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance). Shri H.S.Sandhu, IPS, Inspector General of Police, Punjab and Shri Mansavi Kumar, IAS, Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab conducted a very elaborate inquiry and ultimately reached to the conclusion that false raid has been conducted and deceased Ranajit Singh, ETO had been falsely implicated. It is the case of the prosecution also that Rs.8,00,000/- were paid during the period of remand of Ranjit Singh and another sum of Rs.50lacs were demanded by Amandeep Kaur, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) as illegal gratification for exonerating Ranjit Singh from FIR No.2 dated 29.3.2011 registered under Sections 7, 8, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further case of the prosecution that Ranjit Singh was threatened to implicate him in false cases under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to extract the illegal gratification of Rs.50lacs.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have submitted that in the inquiry proceedings Manjeet Kaur wife of Ranjit Singh, ETO and Pirthi Singh father-in-law of the deceased have not made Criminal Misc. No.M.29411 of 2012 5 any indictment of the petitioners. It is further contended that there is no evidence of payment of Rs.8,00,000/- to Amandeep Kaur and her Reader during the period of remand of Ranjit Singh. It is further contended that Ranjit Singh could not release the articles after 72 hours and only the higher officers could release the goods. The release order by Ranjit Singh on 29.3.2011 amounts to the illegal gratification and the case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was correctly registered.
7. I have carefully considered the said submissions but do not find any force in the said submissions.
8. In the inquiry report made by Shri H.S.Sandhu, IPS, Inspector General of Police, Punjab and Shri Mansavi Kumar, IAS, Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, all these arguments have been elaborately dealt in. It is not disputed during the course of arguments that release order was made by Ranjit Singh on 29.3.2011 regarding goods which were recovered at the spot. In the inquiry report, it has been mentioned that although Ranjit Singh could have released the truck along with articles within 72 hours but impliedly there was consent of AETC, the higher officer. The detailed reasoning has been given. Even a recommendation has been made for issuing charge sheet against AETC who has not supported the version of Ranjit Singh.
9. Regarding statements Annexures P-2 to P-4 made by wife, son and father in-law of deceased, it has been argued that they were in a state of shock and their signatures were obtained without disclosing the contents. Counsel for the petitioners have further argued that those signatures can Criminal Misc. No.M.29411 of 2012 6 only be taken for the purpose of confrontation and cannot be used as substantive evidence.
10. There are serious type of allegations against the petitioners that they have arranged a fake trap. The documents of release of truck from the spot prima facie lend support to the prosecution. The grant of bail to the petitioners at this stage shall hamper the investigation. A senior police officer of the rank of SP is involved and the argument of learned counsel for the complainant as well as State is that some of the police officers are trying to shield the police officials. Recommendation has been made in the inquiry report to transfer the police officials involved in the raid to their parent department so that in future innocent government employees may not involve.
11. The other argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that even in the inquiry report it is mentioned that there is no direct nexus, so the ingredient of offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out. However, besides inquiry report the allegations of the prosecution is that Ranjit Singh was summoned by Amandeep Kaur, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) in her office to extract the illegal gratification of Rs.50lacs in addition to the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- .
12. So, prima facie it cannot be said that ingredient of offence under Section 306 of the IPC are not made out.
13. So far as authorities Krishana and others vs. State reported as 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal ) page 93 and M.Mohan versus State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported as (2011) Criminal Misc. No.M.29411 of 2012 7 3 Supreme Court Cases page 626 are concerned, the said cases relate to the suicide by the bride in which general allegations were made against the family members of in-laws regarding suicide. So, the said authorities are distinguishable.
14. So, in these circumstances, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, all the anticipatory bail applications stand dismissed.
15. However, it is made clear that any observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case.
16. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE October 30 , 2012 sv