GYANI BALDEV SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was arrested in Dec. 1986 in a case under section 5(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered on November 13, 1986, at Chandigarh. Later offences under sections 420, 109, 120 B, IPC and 4(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 were also added to it on the basis of secret information. So far as the role of the petitioner in this case is concerned, all that is alleged by the counsel for the State is that the petitioner brought, six applications in the names of bogus persons for the issuance of their passport to one Harjit Singh, who was working with different travel agencies and this Harjit Singh after completing those applications, filed them in the office of the Regional Passport Officer concededly the petitioner had not written anything in those applications. What is further high lighted is that as a matter of fact these passports were sought to be issued in favour of certain persons who were terrorists or guilty of commission of various crimes and that is the reason why the latter mentioned sections i.e. sections 420, 109, 120 -B, I.P.C. and section 4(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 were added to this case. As has been pointed out earlier, the only material available with the respondent at the moment is that the petitioner had handed over the application forms to Harjit Singh and it is he who, after completing those, had submitted them to the Regional Passport Office.

(2.) HAVING given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter in the light of the abovenoted facts. I find that prima facie there is no evidence direct or circumstantial of any conspiracy against the petitioner. In the absence of the same, the factum of bringing the application forms even if to be believed does not in any way attract the application of section 4(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1985, or sections 420, 109 and 120 -B, I.P.C. similarly, nothing has been brought to my notice to show that the petitioner was in any way instrumental in giving any bribe to any of the officials of the Regional Passport Office for procuring passports referred to above. I, therefore, allow him bail to the satisfaction of C.J. M Chandigarh. Petition allowed.