Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Pal vs State Of Punjab on 19 December, 2023
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163197
CRM-M-59755-2023
213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-59755-2023
Reserved on: 07.12.2023
Pronounced on: 19.12.2023
Tarsem Pal ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Jaspreet Singh Brar, Advocate
for the pe oner.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta on Sec ons 0311 02.10.2021 City Faridkot, 7, 13(1) A of PC Act, 1988 (Amendment
District Faridkot Act, 2018) and Sec on 42 of Prisons Act, 1894
1. The pe oner- Assistant Superintendent Jails apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above on the allega ons of providing one phone, three essen al pad phones, and various mobile accessories to one prisoner, Vishal Kumar, for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as a bribe through Baljit Kaur- wife of inmate Vishal Kumar, had come up before this Court under Sec on 438 CrPC seeking an cipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 12 of the bail pe on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. Facts of the case are being extracted from reply dated 06.12.2023 filed by concerned DySP which reads as under: -
"3. That the brief facts of the case FIR No. 311 (supra) as given below are that The State authori es of Jail department while taking a serious note of videos became viral on social pla%orm and were posted by a Jail inmates namely Vishal Kumar, whereby making allega ons against fail officials for malprac ce and corrup on prevalent within the four walls of prison. In order to get a deep probe, Inspector General of Police, Ferozepure was directed to look into the ma.er and to hold a preliminary enquiry vide Endt No. 01-26-2020-41-259-262 dated: 30-01-2020. Thereupon the 1 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2023 03:42:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163197 CRM-M-59755-2023 then Deputy Supdt of Police (D) Faridkot under the supervision of Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur undertook a detailed and thorough enquiry and surfaced the corrup on prevalent from top to bo.om level in Central Jail administra on at Faridkot and resulted into the registra on of FIR No. 311 dated: 02-10-2021 under sec on 7/13(1)(a) Preven on of Corrup on Act and 42 of Jail Acts against present pe oner and his accomplice.
4. That from the enquiry it was emerged out that the prisoner called Vishal Kumar son of Charanjit Singh r/o Chand Chahal, Mansa was convicted in case FIR No. 135 dated: 24-7-2012 u/s 22 NDPS Act P.S City Mansa and was sentenced with imprisonment for 10 years and fine, besides various other FIRs in which said Vishal Kumar was confined in Faridkot Jail as under trial. Jail record transpired that on 20-01-2020 said prisoner Vishal Singh was involved in case FIR No. 23 dated: 20-01-2020 under Sec on 294/186/353 IPC and 42/52 Jail Act P.S City Faridkot. During interroga on, accused-prisoner Vishal Kumar revealed various facts and made accusa on against another prisoner Sarpanch Village Mangewala who were serving sentence in murder case, who allegedly received from Vishal Kumar sum of Rs. 10,000/- with false promise to get him release on parole. ThereaBer Sarpanch Mangowala allegedly received from him ransom of Rs.15,000/- by puCng him fear of death.
Be it further disclosed by prisoner Vishal Kumar that said Mangewala Sarpanch with hands in glove with present pe oner Tarsem Pal, Asst. Superintenent, Jail, was carrying his illegal ac vi es of collec ng money In Jail. In their ac vi es, warden Gurtej Singh is also involved. In the year 2019, on three occasions, he made payments of Rs. 35000/-, 3000/- and 5000/- respec vely to Warden Gurtej Singh on his Paytm number 81950- 83146. Once in D-Addic on compound pe oner. Tarsem Pal had given him one smart phone and three keypad phones and various mobile accessories. He was once harassed with the pretext of shiBing him to another block where her rivals were detained and thereby he paid bribe of Rs. 50000- to present pe oner-Tarsem Pal through his wife Baljit Kaur.
22 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2023 03:42:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163197 CRM-M-59755-2023
5. The during the course of enquiry, incumbent officer-cum- DSP(D) has obtained report of Technical Cell as to the Paytm - UPI No. 81950-83146, which revealed that on 19-9-2019 a sum of Rs.35000/- was transferred to this number. Further payment of Rs.3000/- and 5000/- were again transferred to this UPI number on 05-11-2019 and 14-11-2019 respec vely. The amount was transferred by Sukhvir Singh R/o Partap Nagar, Bathinda from his Paytm UPI number 85280-63630 (Paytm ID- 420803) to UPI no. 81950-83146 which belongs to Gursimran Singh s/o Gurnam Singh r/o Near Bus Stand, Village Dhilwan Kalan who was running Common service Centre and Business Corporate Point at Village Dhab Guru ki. Said Gursimran Singh disclosed that his friend faskaran Singh and warden Gurtej Singh happens to be father of said laskaran Singh and used his UPI number to receive the above men oned payments from Sukhvir Singh and payment was withdrawn by Jaskaran Singh, Said Gurtej Singh admi.ed that he received payments through Gursimran Singh on the UPL In the year 2019 when he was in-charge of Block-F,G,H,J,K-05. Vishal Kumar-complainant was detained in Block-H. Figh ng was broke out between Vishal and other inmates of his block. Vishal was produced before co-accused Gurjeet Singh and he was shiBed in D- Addic on Centre. Gurjeet Singh Brar and pe oner-Tarsem Singh asked warden Gurtej Singh to take UPI-PayTM number of some other person so that amount can be received from Vishal Kumar. Then the UPI number of Gursimran Singh (friend of Jaskaran Singh) was provided and payment was transferred by Vishal Kumar to this UPI. Pe oner received payment from Gursimran Singh and handed over to pe oner- Tarsem Pal, in his office.
4. Counsel for the pe oner states that to deprive liberty to a police officer with a clean record simply because a video has been made by one of the inmates, Vishal Kumar, would demoralize the police force for the reason that such inmate had malice and inten on to demo vate and decapitated the police team. The answer to this submission is that this Court is extra cau ous and has already granted bail to one Dy. Superintendent of Jail Gurjeet Singh Brar, even though he had criminal antecedents, the apprecia on of evidence collected against him did not make a case to deny him bail. To the contrary, this Court, aGer analyzing evidence collected against the warden Gurtej Singh, has dismissed his an cipatory bail pe on.
33 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2023 03:42:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163197 CRM-M-59755-2023
5. The pe oner's next ground is that the allega on regarding payment of Rs. 70,000/- relates to Nov 2019 and Rs. 50,000/- to Dec 2019, and the inmate Vishal Kumar made the video viral in 2020, an FIR was registered in 2021 and all the allega ons made in such video, are by a convict who is a habitual offender. As such, the delay shows false implica ons. He further submits that the pe oner has re red from service, and during his en re tenure, there was no allega on against him. Referring to para no.4 of the pe on, the pe oner further states that he was awarded commenda on cer ficate Class-I by the Addi onal Director, Jail Department, Punjab, and another commenda on cer ficate Class-III by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gurdaspur, for performing his du es with honesty and has referred to Annexures P-2 to P-4 regarding such cer ficates. Arguments on behalf of the State are that said video points towards the nexus of jail officials with the criminals and there is enough evidence against the pe oner, and they need custodial interroga on to unearth the modus operandi and to find out how many officials of the police department and jail are involved in such acts.
6. The allega on against the pe oner is that he and Gurjeet Singh Brar had asked Gurtej Singh to take the UPI PayTM number to receive the amount from Vishal Kumar. Then, the UPI number of Gursimran Singh was provided, and Vishal Kumar transferred the payment. The payment was received from Gursimran Singh and handed over to the pe oner in his office. In the video, allega ons of Vishal Kumar are that his wife Baljit Kaur had paid Rs.70,000/- to Tarsem Pal- pe oner, in November 2019, and again, a cash amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid in December 2020. It would be relevant to extract paras no.6 and 7 of the reply, which reads as follows:-
"6. The allega ons of Vishal Kumar that his wife Baljit Kaur paid a cash amount of Rs. 70,000/- as bribe to pe oner Tarsem Pal in November 2019 at the outside of Central Jail and again cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid to pe oner in the last month of December 2019 also appeared genuine from the verifica on of mobile number of 62847-23885 belongs to Baljit Kaur w/o Vishal Kumar and mobile number 94173-10254 of Tarsem Pal -pe oner. The Call details of these mobile number transpired that pe oner took mobile call to Baljit Kaur on 23-12-2019, 28-12-2019 and 21-01-2020 as the mobile call of an pe oner being an Ass. Superintendent with the wife of a Jail Inmate is unusual. Their mobile calls chart showing date and dura on is annexed herewith as Annexure: R- 1/1.4
4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2023 03:42:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163197 CRM-M-59755-2023
7. The video uploaded by Vishal Kumar on Social media and facts surfaced during his interroga on in case FIR No. 23 (supra) prima facie established the allega ons of receiving bribe of Rs. 120,000/- in cash and Rs. 43000/- through online transfer mode from Vishal Kumar and his wife Baljit Kaur which are highly serious offence and involvement of present pe oner among Gurjit Singh Brar, Deputy Supdt and Warden Gurtej Singh- pe oner is evident and finding the commission of offence 7. 13 of Preven on of Corrup on Act r/w 42 of Jail Act made out against above said officials, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (D) Faridkot vide his report dated: 03-6-2020 recommended to launch inves ga on for the offence men oned above."
8. An analysis of the inves ga on, which is undergoing prima facie evidence connec ng the pe oner, is sufficient to require his custodial interroga on to unearth the en re modus operandi of supplying mobile phones, etc., in the jail. The inves ga on explicitly states that the pe oner played a cri cal link in their unlawful monetary dealings.
9. The pe oner is also not en tled to bail on parity with co-accused Gurjeet Singh Brar because the allega ons of receiving a bribe of Rs. 1,20,000/- are levelled explicitly against the pe oner.
10. Given the nature of allega ons, custodial interroga on is required. An analysis of the allega ons and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the pe oner.
11. In Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529, 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. ThereaGer, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
55 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2023 03:42:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163197 CRM-M-59755-2023 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.
12. 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 commiNed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is commiNed 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....."
13. 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 oGen interroga on in such a condi on would reduce to a mere 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.
14. 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].
15. 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 maNer of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving 6 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2023 03:42:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163197 CRM-M-59755-2023 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.
16. 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.
17. 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 7 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2023 03:42:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163197 CRM-M-59755-2023 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.
18. 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.
19. Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to these comments.
Pe on dismissed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. All pending applica ons, if any, also stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
19.12.2023
Jyo Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163197
8
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2023 03:42:50 :::