SHRADHESH CHANDRA (S. CHANDRA) Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 10 dated 27.8.2010, under Sections 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that Petitioner was enlarged on interim bail vide order dated 17.9.2010 and has already been enlarged on bail by the Investigating Officer. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further states that co -accused, namely, Balraj Singh Nehra, Assistant Garrison Engineer (SDO) has suffered disclosure statement stating that he has accepted the bribe on behalf of the Petitioner that is why Petitioner is also implicated in the present case. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further states that prior to the incident in question Petitioner has recommended the cases of the complainant as well as the shadow witnesses to the higher authorities for black listing, that is why to take revenge, this false case has been planted upon the Petitioner.

(3.) MR . Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab, on instructions from DSP Bhupinder Singh, has fairly stated that Vigilance Bureau has not prepared list of properties movable or immovable in the possession of the Petitioner to make out the case against the Petitioner under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, Vigilance Bureau wants to investigate, by way of custodial interrogation of the Petitioner, as to what are the properties in possession of the Petitioner and what is the source to income to have these properties.