VINOD MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.63, dtd. 23/12/2000 at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, under Ss. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Ses. 7(2) of Punjab Land Reforms Act and Ss. 13(1), (a), (b), (c), (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) The FIR was lodged on the basis of secret information received by Vigilance Bureau to the effect that Rakesh Syal, his sister Promila Syal, his mother Bimla Syal, and Rimilla Sinha, Directors of 'M/s Golden Projects Limited' had purchased huge land in the year 1992 after collecting money from the innocent gullible investors with false assurance of lucrative returns but neither any amount was returned nor any land was given to such investors, who were left to the lurch. Upon conclusion of investigation, a challan was presented on 9/8/2001 against those who were named in the FIR and also other directors of the company. However, the petitioner had not been arrested and ultimately was declared a proclaimed offender on 15/5/2002. The petitioner was arrested on 19/11/2022 and has been custody since then.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was on account of sheer bad luck that the company could not survive and went into losses and that there was no intention of any kind on the part of anybody to defraud the investors. It has further been submitted that the co-accused, who were tried, have already stand acquitted and that the said acquittal has attained finality. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is aged about 64 years and is having various ailments and his condition is critical. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to hammer forth his aforesaid submission, has referred to the medical record of the petitioner annexed with the petition as Annexure P-9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that having regard to the critical medical condition of the petitioner and also the fact that co-accused have already been acquitted, no useful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner behind bars any longer.