ONKAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Onkar Chand, Chairman of Markfed up to Oct. 1976, Member of the' Punjab State Electricity Board and General Secretary of Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee, was arrested on 5th August, 1977, in pursuance of First Information Report No. 208, registered against him for having committed offences Under Sections 161, 162, 406, 420 Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 5 (1) (d) (e) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(2.) IT is alleged in the First Information Report that Jasbir Singh, son of Jagdev Singh, complainant, had applied for a job in the Food Corporation of India. He received interview card letter No. 15880, Joginder Singh (co-accused with Onkar. Chand), who was known to the complainant already, approached him and assured him that he had an approach with Onkar Chand, :a highly connected officer, and that his son would be secured the job in question. On 15th December, 1976, the said Joginder Singh took the complainant along with his son, Jasbir Singh to House No, 330, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh. Joginder Singh went inside the the said house leaving them to wait outside. After considerable time, he emerged from the said house along with Onkar Chand. Onkar Chand told the complainant in the presence of the said Joginder Singh that his work would be done provided he arranged to pay a sum of Rs. 12000/ -. He directed the- complainant to pay the said amount, of Joginder Singh. Thereafter, the said Joginder Singh was allegedly paid Rs. 10. 000a- at two different points of time. When the complainant's son did not get the promised job, the complainant started asking Joginder Singh for paying the amount back, who is alleged to have been putting them off on one pretext or the other and went to the extent of executing two pronotes of Rs. 5,000/- each, to instil confidence in the complaint about his bona fides in the matter of securing a job for his son. However, ultimately when he refused point blank to refund the amount, the complainant lodged the present First Information Report. The applicant, Onkar Chand, as also Joginder Singh, aforesaid, applied for bail to the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who with the following observations declined to release them: There can be little doubt that refusal of bail is not to serve as a punitive measure, and normally, a man is entitled to be released on bail, unless, his remand to police custody is necessary to enable the Investigatory agency to, properly, investigate the case. No opinion can be expressed at this stage, on the merits of the allegations, and counter-allegations made by the learned opposing counsel, in the course of their arguments. The perusal of the police file, however, leaves no manner of doubt, that the investigating officers, reasonably require the two accused for interrogation in connection with the case in hand, and in regard to source of acquisition of moveable and immovable property worth lacs revealed to be in their possession, as set up by the prosecution. It is not alleged, in the course of their arguments, by the learned counsel for the accused (applicants), that the Investigatory agency is adopting third degree method to extract confessions from them. Under the circumstances, holding that the Investigating Officers are entitled to interrogate the two accused in the course of period of their remand, obtained, with full justification from the learned Magistrate, I do not find any cogent ground, at this stage, to release the two accused on bail and reject their prayers for being released on bail at this stage.

(3.) MR. Anand Swarup, appearing for the applicant, has emphasized the fact that there was nothing further to investigate as whatever investigation had to be made must have been completed by now and that Joginder Singh, who should be considered the principal offender, had already been released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, yesterday, that is, 10th August, 1977. and there was no reason as to why the applicant should be kept in jail custody.