GURMIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 65 dated 22. 6. 2007 registered at Police Station, Sadar khamanon for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120b, IPC and Sections 8, 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) THE FIR has been registered on the basis of an application made by complainant gurtej Singh against Gurmit Singh (petitioner No. 1)and Gurdeep Singh (non-petitioner) sons of Mohinder Singh (petitioner no. 2) and Kuldeep Singh (non-petitioner ). It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 4,25,000 was taken by the accused in the name of officers. The complainant is Secretary of a Cooperative Society and was under suspension. It is alleged that sons of the complainant, namely, Tejinderpal Singh and sukhdarshan Singh were partners of Rial united Group Personality Development and insurance Consultants. One Kewal Kumar was the owner of the said Consultancy. There were about 80,000 members of the society and each member was to contribute rs. 3,500. The son of the complainant used to enrol further members and for this purpose he got commission. About 80,000 persons had become members till then. After some time, case FIR No. 480 dated 16. 9. 2006 was registered at Police Station, Kotwali bathinda for the offence under Section 420, ipc against the aforesaid Consultancy.

(3.) THE son of the complainant, namely, tejinderpal Singh is also named as an accused in the said case. The complainant in October 2006 submitted an application to the Internal Vigilance, Chandigarh for declaring his son to be innocent in the case. The said application was marked to Shri labh Kishore, Commandant 36, Battalion, bahadurgarh. Kuldeep Singh, resident of masuke was also a member of the aforesaid consultancy and he was also named as an accused in case FIR No. 480 dated 16. 9. 2006 registered at Police Station, Kotwali bathinda. The said Kuldeep Singh told the complainant Gurtej Singh that Kulwinder singh son of Harbans Singh, who belongs to his village and was his relative, had contacts with Gurmit Singh (petitioner No. 1)and Gurdeep Singh (non-petitioner) sons of mohinder Singh (petitioner No. 2) and they had links with higher authorities. Gurtej singh-complainant and Kuldeep Singh had contacted Gurmit Singh and Gurdeep Singh. A sum of Rs. 3,00,000 was paid to Gurdeep singh and Gurmit Singh. Again a sum of rs. 1,25,000 was paid to the accused. Gurdeep Singh and Gurmit Singh stated that payment had been further made to mohan Lal Sharma. Application had admittedly been moved to declare Tejinderpal Singh, son of the complainant Gurtej Singh as innocent and a sum of Rs. 4,25,000 had been collected which was further paid to one mohan Lal Sharma. Therefore, there are allegations against petitioner No. 1 Gurmit singh. However, it may be noticed that mohinder Singh (petitioner No. 2) is the father of gurmit Singh (petitioner No. l ). He is aged about 70 years and there is nothing specific attributed to him. It may also be noticed that Gurdeep Singh, co-accused of the petitioners has been granted regular bail.