(1.) The petitioner has file the present petition under Section 438. Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case F.I.R. No. 11 dated May -16. 2002 under Sections 420, 467/120-B. Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered at Police Station Mohali.
(2.) The facts of the case as emerging from the F.I.R. are that on April 26, 2001, the then Chief Minister of Punjab, on demand made by the Panchayats of the villages of nabha Assembly constituency wrote to the Financial Commissioner Punjab, Department of Rural Development & Panchayats for the purchase of two drag line machines to be used for digging of ponds in the villages. On May 16, 2001 a proposal for the purchase of 18 machines was prepared which after approval from the then D.R.D.P. was sent to the Financial Commissioner. A committee was constituted by the petitioner who at that time was the Minister of Rural Development R. Panchayats for the purpose. A notice of 7, 8 days was directly given to the press for inviting lenders on June 1, 2001 whereas a notice of at least 21 days was required to be given. The lenders were invited by the D.R.D.P. on 8.6.2001. On 8.6.2001 the proceedings regarding tenders were conducted by the Chief Engineer. On 13.6.2001 the Financial Commissioner at his own level put u a note for the purchase of 20 machines. The petitioner only approved the purchase of 18 machines and the same were purchased. After that the Financial Commissioner on the oral orders of the then Chief Minister put up a note for the purchase of 50 machines. The machines were purchased at the rate of Rs. 13,24,962/- per machine. A note for the purchase of another 50 in war prepared on November 3, 2001. and the approval for the purchase of 35 machines was granted by the petitioner. Drivers for running the machines were also employed whose services were later on terminated. In this was machines of crores of rupees were purchased, which are lying useless. Further, it has been alleged in the first information report that similar machines were purchased by the State of Haryana at the rate of Rs. 10,3000/- plus Rs. 41,400/- as tax per machine. Thus, a huge loss to the exchequer was caused.
(3.) Mr. H.S. Mattewal Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the first information report it has been mentioned that the State of Haryana had purchased the Drag line Machines (for short the machines) at the rate of Rs. 10,3,000/- plus Rs. 41,400/- as tax per machine, whereas the State of Punjab had purchased the similar machines at the rate of Rs. 13,24,962/- per machine. The counsel contends that in fact the State of Haryana had never purchased the said machines. He has drawn my attention to Annexure P-2. which is a clarification Issued by the Escorts JCB Limited. wherein it has been stated that the state of Haryana had never purchased the machines from the afore said company. He further contended that the machines were not purchased at an exorbitant rate and no loss was caused to the State exchequer. According to him, once the price had already been determined for the purchase of the machines then there was no need for inviting fresh tenders for the purchase of fresh lot of machines. He contends that the matter was considered the highest level and it was decided that in all 103 machines were required by the State and the orders were placed keeping in view the requirement.