Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 30 July, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097852
1
CRM-M-33903-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-33903-2024
Reserved on: 23.07.2024
Pronounced on: 30.07.2024
Pawan Kumar ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate
for the pe oner.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta on Sec ons 08 07.03.2024 An Corrup on Bureau, 384, 120-B, 201 IPC and Karnal Sec ons 7/7A of PC Act 1988
1. The pe oner, apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above, has come up before this Court under Sec on 482 of BNSS, 2023.
2. In paragraph 17 of the bail pe on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. Pe oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the pe oner and family.
4. State opposes the bail.
5. Facts of the case are being taken from the status report dated 22.07.2024 filed by concerned DySP, which reads as under:-
"On 07-03-2024, the complainant Dr. Sanjeev Chhabra S/o Rajender Chhabra Rio Village Kalayat, District Kaithal handed over his complaint to Inspector Sube Singh, An) Corrup)on Bureau, Unit Kaithal wherein he had alleged that he was running an Imaging and Diagnos)c Centre at Barsat 1 1 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 11:48:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097852 2 CRM-M-33903-2024 Road, Panipat. In year 2023, co- accused Dr. Pawan Kumar, Nodal Officer PNDT (pe))oner-accused) and Naveen Kumar (co- accused) dealing clerk, Civil Hospital, Panipat had checked F-Forms (pa)ent forms) in their centre and they issued him no)ce by deliberately crea)ng errors with the inten)on for taking bribe. When complainant met Dr. Pawan, then he told complainant to meet Naveen Kumar, dealing clerk in this regard. Therea8er, complainant met with co-accused Naveen Kumar who told complainant to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- bribe money, as per instruc)on given by Dr. Pawan Kumar (pe))oner-accused), this amount had been showen to complainant Dr. Sanjeev Chhabra by co-accused Naveen Kumar by wri)ng this in calculator. Therea8er, complainant gave reply to no)ce in December, 2023 but showed his inability to pay the said bribe amount upon which Dr. Pawan Kumar and Naveen Kumar had threatened the complainant that if bribe amount is not paid, then they will falsely implicate him (complainant) in PC & PNDT cases, due to this complainant met Naveen Kumar clerk, a week ago and he informed him that this case is now no longer in the hands of the Nodal Officer alone and it will be decided by the commi:ee now and demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- bribe money from complainant. Therea8er, on request of complainant, Naveen typed the bribe amount of Rs.
2,20,000/- on calculator and showed it to him and when he said that even this is too much, than Naveen told him that he will talk to Nodal officer. Therea8er, Naveen typed Rs.2,00,000/- as bribe amount on his calculator with the assurance that the ma:er will be se:led but he didn't want to pay the bribe money to Dr. Pawan Kumar, Nodal Officer and Naveen Clerk, hence, the present Case FIR No. 8 dated 07-03-2024 was registered u/s 7, 7A, PC Act, 1988 and 384, 120-B IPC in Police Sta)on, An) Corrup)on Bureau, Karnal.
3. That therea8er, the Superintendent of Police, An) Corrup)on Bureau, Karnal appointed Sh. Naveen Kumar Assistant Town Planner, Panipat as Gaze:ed Officer upon which the Gaze:ed Officer/Independent witness further appointed Sh. Tantripal, driver, O/o ATP, Panipat as Shadow Witness. Raiding team was cons)tuted and a8er applying Phenolphthalein powder on currency notes of Rs. 2,00,000/- the said notes were handed over to the complainant Dr. Sanjeev Chhabra who was instructed to talk with Naveen Kumar, Clerk Civil Hospital, Panipat for his work and on raising his demand, the complainant was instructed to hand over Rs. 2,00,000/- tainted money to Naveen (co-accused). During this, complainant asked the inspector that he had received an informa)on from Naveen to give the bribe amount to Vishal Malik, Managing Director, Aadhar 2 2 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 11:48:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097852 3 CRM-M-33903-2024 Hospital, Panipat in his hospital. The Shadow witness was also instructed to see and hear the conversa)on between complainant and accused and was further directed to give the appointed signal to the raiding team. List of Currency notes, memo of handing over the notes and the search memo etc. were prepared.
Therea8er, the complainant and shadow witness proceeded to meet Vishal Malik and a8er some )me the complainant the shadow witness acted accordingly and therea8er, Vishal Malik (co-accused) was apprehended inside the cabin of the Aadhar Hospital, Panipat. Upon asking him to produce the bribe money, Vishal Malik told that he had handed over the bribe money of Rs. 2,00,000/- to his employee namely Paras for keeping its safely in a par)cular place in a Hospital.
Therea8er, Vishal Malik was arrested in the present case and he voluntarily suffered his disclosure statement (Annexure R-1) and disclosed that he took the bribe money from complainant upon asking of Naveen dealing clerk and his share was 10 percent out of it whereas 20 percent share was of Naveen (co-accused) and rest was of Dr. Pawan Nodal officer (Pe))oner-accused) and further offered to get the same recovered. Therea8er, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, Vishal Malik got recovered the bribe/tainted money from his Aadhar Hospital alongwith employee Paras which was taken into possession vide separate recovery memo (Annexure R-2). The hands of the complainant, Vishal Malik and Paras were got washed separately and the solu)on thereof turned light pink. The currency notes, nips of hand washes were converted into sealed parcels and were taken into possession vide separate recovery memo's which were also signed by the respected witnesses. Site plan of the place of occurrence and recovery were also prepared. The inves)ga)ng officer also took into possession one DVR along with adaptor and mobile of co- accused Vishal Malik vide separate recovery memos and recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
4. That during the course of inves)ga)on on 08-03-2024, complainant Dr. Sanjeev Chhabra and Paras produced the audio recording device and mobile phone, respec)vely, before the inves)ga)ng officer, wherein demand of bribe/conversa)on was recorded among the complainant Dr. Sanjeev Chhabra and accused persons viz Vishal Malik (co- accused) and Naveen (co-accused), upon which the inves)ga)ng officer with the help of HC Pawan Kumar ACB, Unit Kaithal, prepared two CD's and its transcript in Hindi and a8er conver)ng the CD's into a separate sealed parcels, 3 3 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 11:48:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097852 4 CRM-M-33903-2024 the audio CD's. its transcripts and cer)ficates u/s 65-B, Evidence Act were taken into possession vide memo, which was signed by respec)ve witnesses. The inves)ga)ng officer also recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C on even dates.
5. That on 08-03-2024, the inves)ga)ng officer also got recorded the statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of Dr. Sanjeev Chhabra and Paras before Ld. JMIC, Panipat, who fully corroborated the prosecu)on version."
6. Counsel for the pe oner submits that it is a false implica on and that he is being arraigned as an accused based on suspicion and that the pe oner had no connec on with co-accused Naveen, Clerk. Counsel for the pe oner has referred to para no.3 of the pe on, which reads as follows: -
"3. That as a ma:er of fact, the applicant was assigned the addi)onal charge of Nodal Officer PNDT vide office order dated 22/09/2022. The copy of order is enclosed as Annexure P-2. Therea8er vide order dated 16/06/2023 of District Appropriate Authority, Panipat, the pe))oner along with four other officers were ordered to ensure the inspec)on of the registered centre on 24/08/2023 under PC&PNDT at Panipat and to submit inspec)on report to District Appropriate Authority (DAA). The copy of order is enclosed as Annexure P-3.The District Appropriate Authority consists of Civil Surgeon, who is the chairperson and two other members i.e. District A:orney, Panipat and DPO, W&CD, Panipat. Therea8er in pursuance of aforesaid order, the team of three members authorized by the aforesaid order namely Dr. Pawan, Nodal Officer P&DT (pe))oner), Dr. Rinku Sangwan Nodal Officer (FW) and Mrs. Deepika Rani, ADA, inspected the complainant's Diagnos)c Centre. During inspec)on certain viola)ons /irregulari)es were detected and proforma/report was prepared in this regard at the spot. The complainant Dr. Sanjeev Chhabra was also present at the spot. He even admi:ed his fault/mistake in wri)ng.
Performa/report was handed over to the District Appropriate Authority for further ac)on in accordance with the law. On 23/11/2023 District Appropriate Authority issued show cause no)ce under PC&PNDT Act to Complainant's Diagnos)c Centre and on 30/11/2023 reply / explana)on to the show cause no)ce was submi:ed by the complainant to the competent authority i.e. District Appropriate Authority. The copy of report, show cause no)ce and reply to the show cause no)ce are enclosed herewith respec)vely Annexure P-4 to P-6. Therea8er the agenda was discussed in the mee)ng of District Appropriate Authority held on 02/01/2024 and the decision was taken by District Appropriate Authority that the machine will be sealed 4 4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 11:48:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097852 5 CRM-M-33903-2024 for one month. The copy of agenda of mee)ng is enclosed herewith as Annexure P-7."
7. The State's counsel has opposed such submission and states that there is ample evidence that Naveen was a tout of the pe oner, and it was the pe oner who sent him to collect money, and eventually, the bribe money was recovered at the instance of one Vishal Malik, Managing Director. State counsel further submits that the pe oner had no business to call the complainant when he was found viola ng the provisions of the PNDT Act and has referred to para no.13 of the reply, which reads as follows :-
"13. That on 1-7-2024 the inves)ga)ng officer took into possession the call details of Dr. Sanjeev Chabra (complainant) mobile No. 81477- 21527 and Dr. Pawan Kumar (pe))oner- accused) mobile No. 94671- 90830 from 24-9-2023 to 26-9-2023 vide separate recovery memo and upon its analysis, it was found that the Tower Loca)on of above said mobile numbers of the complainant and pe))oner-accused were same on 25-9- 2023 at about 10:00 AM in Samalkha, Panipat. The true translated copy of Analysis report of inves)ga)ng officer is a:ached herewith as Annexure R-4."
8. Analyzing the above arguments would lead to the following outcome. The audio recording of Naveen Kumar with Sanjeev indicates Naveen Kumar's demand for money at the behest of the pe oner. The complainant's statement under Sec on 164 CrPC also corroborates the pe oner's demand for money. There is sufficient electronic evidence connec ng the pe oner with the crime. The perusal of the pe on does not refer to any explana on about his phone calls with the accused persons and tower loca on. Thus, the pe oner is not en tled to bail on this ground.
9. Pe oner's next ground for bail is a delay of 08 months in the registra on of FIR. Counsel for the pe oner submits that the me was used to concoct evidence, delibera ons, and consulta ons. He further submits that the Centre was inspected not only by the pe oner but also by a team consis ng of Dr. Rinku and ADA Deepika Rani, and the report was signed on the spot, and complainant also signed the same. He further submits that if any incident of bribe had occurred, then it would have come to the no ce of the other two persons, who have not been arraigned as accused. The State's counsel submits that primarily it was the pe oner who had demanded a bribe from the complainant for the reason that the complainant had violated the provisions of the PNDT Act and the pe oner, being the Nodal Officer, had the primary responsibility to ensure that the ultrasound machines were not u lized for sex determina on. State counsel further submits that a lot of unscrupulous doctors misuse their ultrasound machines and disclose the gender of the unborn child to the expec ng mothers, and such mothers, when they find the fetus to be female, go for illegal abor ons or 5 5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 11:48:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097852 6 CRM-M-33903-2024 termina on of pregnancy, which has imbalanced the gender amongst popula on. State's Counsel submits that although now, because of massive efforts, the popula on of females has again increased, this effort by the government agencies and NGOs will take a hit if this Court show any mercy on unscrupulous people like the pe oner and the complainant. An analysis of these arguments would lead to the outcome that in the commiGee cons tuted vide office order Annexure P-3, although there were other members, the pe oner cannot claim any benefit simply because the other four persons were not arraigned as accused and submit that he is to be absolved. The pe oner was the Nodal Officer and was in charge overall and in a dominant posi on. Even the complainant knew of the pe oner's domina ng posi on, and had agreed to pay the bribe through his tout and further payment to Vishal Malik. Thus, the pe oner is not en tled to bail on this ground.
10. The pe oner's next point is that when the complainant received a show cause no ce from DAA, he admiGed his mistake. This shows that the complainant was aware from the beginning that the maGer is pending before DAA, and the pe oner was not in a posi on to do any favour, and as such, there was no purpose for demand of any bribe. The State opposes this submission and submits that the complainant was afraid of the closure of his diagnos c center, which was working illegally in viola on of the PNDT Act and probably disclosing the gender of the unborn child. Even the pe oner told his domina ng posi on and assure to help the complainant and demanded money, however, complainant agreed to pay but he also reported the maGer to vigilance, which led to arrest of co-accused. An analysis of the above argument would lead to the outcome that simply because the no ce was issued would not mean that the pe oner, through Naveen Kumar, did not demand any bribe. There is corrobora ve evidence through audio recording and recovery of the bribe amount, which prima facie establishes the complainant's version and credibility of the inves ga on and thus pe oner is not en tled to bail.
11. The co-accused Naveen's an cipatory bail was dismissed and had preferred SLP [SLP(Crl) 7990-2024 Naveen v. The State of Haryana, decided on 14-06-2024] before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was dismissed vide order dated 14.06.2024.
12. The pe oner is also not en tled to bail on parity with co-accused Vishal because the co-accused's bail is a regular bail filed under sec on 439 CrPC, and the parameters for gran ng a regular bail differ from those for an cipatory bail.
13. There is another reason to deny an cipatory bail to the pe oner. The pe oner's job was to keep an eye on the clinics that had licenses to conduct ultrasound, and such machines were under the provisions of the PNDT Act. Through 6 6 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 11:48:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097852 7 CRM-M-33903-2024 ultrasound scans and amniocentesis, the sex of the fetus can be determined during the pregnancy of the woman, and then the fetus is aborted if found to be female 1. There are widespread whisperings of misuse of such ultrasound machines in many areas for sex determina on, which leads to female fe cide. The misuse of technology simply reinforces the secondary status given to girl children in such a way that they are culled out even before they are born.2
14. The harsh, shameful, and repulsive ground reality had been an unequal female propor on in the popula on, which, with great social resilience, has started balancing. Studies suggest that in India, men and women across all wealth strata, educa on groups, castes, tribes, religions, and states have a preference for sons. For example, 81% of ever-married women and 74% of ever-married men wanted at least one son, and a quarter of men and women wanted more sons than daughters3. In the absence of social security or Universal Basic Income, patrilocality and patrilineality are the major reasons for such preference. Female foe cide is perhaps one of the worst forms of violence against women where a woman is denied her most basic and fundamental right i.e "the right to life".4
15. A reference to the Na onal Sample Survey Office, 2017, posted by the Ministry of Sta s cs and Programme Implementa on5, Government of India, data on the percent Share of Female Popula on in the Total Popula on and Sex Ra o suggests horrific numbers. As per this data, in 2011, the female popula on ra o in India was 943 females compared to 1000 males, whereas in Haryana there were only 879 females compared to 1000 males. Similarly, Lok Sabha Secretariat Parliament Library and Reference, Research, Documenta on and Informa on Service (Larrdis) Members' Reference Service Reference Note No. 32/Rn/Ref./October/20156, suggests that in 2011, the global female popula on ra o was 984 to 1000 males, whereas in India, the female ra o was 940 to 1000, and in Haryana, it was 885. However, there has been a steady increase, and as per the latest data of the World bank7 webpage, the female ra o is 48.4%. This global team effort cannot be permiGed to be sabotaged by corrupt government employees.
16. There cannot be any ra onale to condemn and discriminate one human against another human based on their gender. A society where the prac ce of female fe cide is 1 hGps://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/2008/December-2008/engpdf/8-17.pdf 2 .hGps://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/2008/December-2008/engpdf/8-17.pdf 3 IIPS and Macro Interna onal. Na onal Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005-06: India: Vol-I, Interna onal Ins tute for Popula on Sciences and Macro Interna onal; Mumbai: 2007. [Google Scholar] 4 hGps://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/2008/December-2008/engpdf/8-17.pdf 5 hGps://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/reports_and_publica on/sta s cal_publica on/ social_sta s cs/WM17Chapter1.pdf 6 hGps://loksabhadocs.nic.in/Refinput/New_Reference_Notes/English/Ra o_in_India.pdf 7 hGps://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.FE.ZS?loca ons=IN 7 7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 11:48:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097852 8 CRM-M-33903-2024 not looked down upon, not acted upon, or curbed would further deny equal status to equal human beings just because of one's inherent, natural, biologically given gender. In a society like ours, many consider males as an asset and females as a liability for the family because of millennium-old, deep condi oning of male superiority, which is depicted by 'son preference' amongst the members of our society. Today, the globe is witnessing the revolu on of Informa on Technology and ar ficial intelligence, which has been a great gender leveler for all humans. Thus, those who, for their small monetary gains, misuse such sensi ve posi ons not only betray the trust the system has reposed in them, being in such responsible and powerful posi ons, but also fail society, making their conduct highly unethical, immoral, and reducing them to the status of lowest kinds of human beings.
17. Some corrupt government employees put those doctors running diagnos c centers under the PNDT Act under the threat of being wrongly prosecuted under the stringent provisions of the act, and such garb extort money. Reports suggest that a large number of unethical gangs also approach some of these diagnos cs centers, and under one pretext or another, they make payment of money for illegal sex determina on, and they also make video recordings of such conversa ons and subsequent tests. Based on such evidence, they blackmail these unethical people and doctors and further extract and extort massive amounts of money. Instead of checking and puXng an end to such prac ces and unethical prac oners and gangs who are extor ng money from those doctors who agree to disclose gender and pregnancy status under pressure or because of the greed of money, certain corrupt employees at such highly sensi ve and noble posts, very lightly, shrug off their principal du es. The Nodal Agencies under the PNDT are supposed to work with the highest standards of morality, with a strong and unshakeable sense of responsibility, and have to be bold enough to work towards curbing female fe cide, which has led to unequal female-gender ra o in the North Indian popula on. When officials are in responsible, sensi ve, powerful posi ons, instead of proudly shouldering their responsibili es and shrugging off their morals, honor, and du es for illegal financial gains, society must get alarmed. Protec ng the life of our future genera on is not only one of the most fundamental du es of the legal system but also of the world at large, and such a pivotal cons tu onal duty cannot be callously brushed away, as our dignity is at stake.
18. Given the above, the Courts are also under an obliga on to be extra cau ous while gran ng bail to the corrupt government employees and these gangs, as well as the doctors who indulge in these unsensi zed, unethical, immoral ac vi es, while gran ng bail.
88 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 11:48:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097852 9 CRM-M-33903-2024
19. An analysis of the allega ons and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the pe oner.
20. In Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [16]. ... We have no ced one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interroga on is required and, therefore, an cipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconcep on of law that if no case for custodial interroga on is made out by the prosecu on, then that alone would be a good ground to grant an cipatory bail. Custodial interroga on can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an applica on seeking an cipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interroga on of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be an cipatory bail.
The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an an cipatory bail applica on should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. ThereaYer, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interroga on can be one of the grounds to decline an cipatory bail. However, even if custodial interroga on is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant an cipatory bail.
21. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, Supreme Court holds, [5]. ....The en re community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be commiGed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is commiGed with cool calcula on and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfei ng the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer jus ce in an even-handed manner without fear of cri cism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the na onal economy and na onal interest....."
22. In State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, Supreme Court holds, [6]. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interroga on is qualita vely more elicita on oriented than ques oning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Sec on 438 of the code. In a case like this effec ve interroga on of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informa ons and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interroga on would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the me he interrogated. Very oYen interroga on in such a condi on would reduce to a mere 9 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 11:48:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097852 10 CRM-M-33903-2024 ritual. The argument that the custodial interroga on 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 task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.
23. In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, Supreme Court holds, [19]. Parameters for grant of an cipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be sa sfied and further while gran ng such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. An cipatory bail can be granted only in excep onal circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. [See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305].
24. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, Supreme Court holds, [34]. Economic offences cons tute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the maGer of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affec ng the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
[35]. While gran ng bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusa ons, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which convic on will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considera ons.
25. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 9 SCC 24, Supreme Court holds, [70]. We are conscious of the fact that the legisla ve intent behind the introduc on of Sec on 438 Cr.P.C., 1973 is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant an cipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Ar cle 21 of the Cons tu on of India.
1010 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 11:48:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097852 11 CRM-M-33903-2024
26. In Central Bureau of Inves ga on v. Santosh Karnani, Cr.A 1148 of 2023, dated 17-04- 2023, Supreme Court, in an FIR registered under sec ons under Sec ons 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Preven on of Corrup on Act, 1988, holds, [24]. The me−tested principles are that no straitjacket formula can be applied for grant or refusal of an cipatory bail. The judicial discre on of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court must draw a delicate balance between liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Ar cle 21 of the Cons tu on and the need for a fair and free inves ga on, which must be taken to its logical conclusion. Arrest has devasta ng and irreversible social s gma, humilia on, insult, mental pain and other fearful consequences. Regardless thereto, when the Court, on considera on of material informa on gathered by the Inves ga ng Agency, is prima facie sa sfied that there is something more than a mere needle of suspicion against the accused, it cannot jeopardise the inves ga on, more so when the allega ons are grave in nature.
[31]. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corrup on poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percola ng under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, "Corrup on is a tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority." Hence, the need to be extra conscious.
27. In the background of the allega ons and the light of the judicial precedents men oned above in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe oner fails to make a case for an cipatory bail.
28. Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits, nor the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to these comments.
Pe on dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. All pending applica ons, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
30.07.2024
Jyo Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: YES.
11
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 11:48:28 :::