J P THAKUR Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) XZThe learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that this is a fit case in which anticipatory bail ought to be granted. He submitted that there was a Subzi Mandi at Shahdara which in view of the setting up of the Delhi Metro Network was required to be shifted to Ghazipur, Accordingly, fresh licences were required to be issued to the persons entitled for the Subzi Mandi at Ghazipur. It is alleged that there were certain irregularities with regard to the grant of these licences for Ghazipur. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was involved in this conspiracy for granting licences to persons who were not entitled to and denying those who were entitled as also granting licences after the resolution passed in the meeting of the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board which was held on 24.5.2000 which had clearly barred the grant of fresh licences. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this resolution would only take effect when the minutes of this meeting were confirmed and that was confirmed on 17.7.2000 and, therefore, any licenses given during this period would not be in violation of any directive.

(2.) However, the learned Counsel for the State submitted that the resolution was passed and was notified to the persons concerned. In fact, it was received by the accused on 3.7.2000 itself and even thereafter he did not refrain from granting licenses. The learned Counsel for the State pointed out that in similar situations, particularly, in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court has to be very circumspect in granting anticipatory bail because the grant of anticipatory bail in such a situation interferes and intrudes into the sphere of investigation.

(3.) He made this submission on the basis of a decision of this Court in the case of Kundan Lal v. State, 104 (2003) DLT 210=2003 (2) JCC 632. In that case, this Court had observed as under: "The Apex Court has highlighted the relevance and importance of custodial interrogation in the cases of Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in AIR 1985 Supreme Court P-969, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. P.V. Prabhakar Rao, reported in II (1998) CCR 58 (SC)=1997 SCC (Crl.) P-978, State represented by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, reported in IV (1997) CCR 10 (SC)=JT 1997 (7) SC P-651, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bimal Krishna Kundu & Anr., reported in JT 1997 (8) SC P-382, Dukhishyam Benupani, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria, reported in I (1998) CCR 153 (SC)=1998 SCC (Crl.) P-261 and Enforcement Officer, Ued (sic), Bombay v. Bher Chand Uikaji Bora, reported in IX(1999)SLT395=IV(1999)CCR269(SC)=2000(121)ELT(SC).It has been held that the anticipatory bail intrudes into the sphere of investigations and, as such, the Courts must be cautious and circumspect in exercising this power which is discretionary in nature. It has also been held that grant of anticipatory bail in serious cases may have the effect of shaking the faith of people in the administration of justice. In cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act where a public servant is shown to be abusing his official position, the Courts must be slow in affording him protection and must give the Investigating Officer free hand to interrogate him thoroughly to reach to the bottom of the matter and find out as to how and in what manner the corruption was being indulged into."