TEJINDERPAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.08 dated 16.06.2020, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau Bathinda, District Bathinda.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the above noted FIR. He further contended that there was no, prima facie, evidential justification to show the complicity of the petitioner with the co-accused. In fact, the petitioner is not a regular employee of the health department and rather he is a contractual employee. He has further contended that the petitioner had no concern with the issuance of dope test reports, MLRs and disability certificates. He has further contended that the petitioner had been on leave w.e.f. 27.09.2019 to 20.10.2019 due to the death of his ailing daughter, and it was only during that period, the tenders had been floated. Hence, the petitioner has no role whatsoever in the alleged commission of the crime.

(3.) On the other hand, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer made in the present petition, has submitted that there were complaints made by the citizens in respect of bungling of funds as against the false, fabricated and forged bills in the hospital. He has further contended that the Vigilance Bureau had intercepted the mobile communications of all the accused, which would reveal the involvement of the petitioner in the present case.