HARDEEP SINGH @ GURJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking the concession of regular bail, filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C, in case FIR No.41, dtd. 6/9/2024, under Ss. 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sec. 13(1), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, District Patiala.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been in custody since 17/9/2024. It has been submitted that it is a matter of record that the petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs.2.5 lacs from the complainant Bank and at the time of raising the loan he had mortgaged a property on 18/4/2008. The omission with respect to not making the relevant entries in the revenue records was attributable to the co-accused Patwari and the petitioner was totally unaware about the same. Counsel has contended that since investigation in the present case is complete as the challan already presented before the Trial Court, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose as charges are likely to be framed only on the next date of hearing coupled with the fact that since 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited, the trial would take considerable time to conclude. Counsel has also asserted that since the entire case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence which is already part of the challan, there can be no apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the evidence in case he is enlarged on bail.

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite has reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR which stand reproduced herein under:-