SANDEEP SINGH SANDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the above mentioned five petitions filed on behalf of petitioners Sandeep Singh Sandhu, Gaurav Sharma, Harpreet Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Satvinder Singh Kang. While petitioners Sandeep Singh Sandhu, Gaurav Sharma, Harpreet Singh seek grant of anticipatory bail, petitioners Lakhwinder Singh and Satvinder Singh Kang seek grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.10, dtd. 27/9/2022, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Economic Offences Wing, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, under Ss. 13(1)(A)(2) read with Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Ss. 409, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, wherein offences under Ss. 465, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code were added later on.

(2.) The FIR was lodged at the instance of Karamvir Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Economic Offences Branch, Ludhiana, Punjab, wherein it is alleged that a resolution had been passed by members of Panchayat Samiti for installing street lights in 26 villages of Sidhwan Bet Block, which was duly approved vide Resolution No.4, dtd. 30/12/2021. The quotations in respect of the same were called and the quotation submitted by'M/s Amar Electrical Enterprises' @ Rs.7,288.00 per light was accepted by Satvinder Singh Kang, BDPO and a payment of Rs.60.00 lakhs was made to the aforesaid firm i.e.'M/s Amar Electrical Enterprises' within 2 days thereafter. It is alleged that the aforesaid contract was awarded in undue haste solely to extend undue benefit to'M/s Amar Electrical Enterprises' as well as to others, who were involved in the same and as a matter of fact the approved rate of the said lights was Rs.3,325.00 per light as had been duly fixed by XEN, Panchayati Raj, Public Works Division, Ludhiana. It is alleged that the entire amount of Rs.65.00 lakhs as had been released for installation of street lights in 26 villages was usurped by Satvinder Singh Kang, BDPO in connivance with Gaurav Sharma, Proprietor,'M/s Amar Electrical Enterprises'. It is further the case of prosecution that during the course of investigation the involvement of Sandeep Singh Sandhu, Harpreet Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were also found.

(3.) Learned counsel representing the petitioner Satvinder Singh Kang (in CRM-M-57502-2022) has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that as a matter of fact the lights were not at all available at the approved rate of Rs.3,325.00 per light and on account of which even in adjacent villages including villages, which come under BDPO, Sudhar, the street lights were installed @ Rs.12,560.00 per light plus taxes. It has been submitted that the quotation as submitted by'M/s Amar Electrical Enterprises' was accepted being the lowest and was accepted in accordance with the prescribed procedure for purchases and no fault can be found in the same. It has further been submitted that the petitioner, in any case, has been behind bars since the last more than 3 months and that his custodial interrogation will not serve any useful purpose.