SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who has retired from the post of Senior Superintendent of Police, has filed the instant petition seeking concession of pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.20 dated 21.12.2017 under sections 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.

(2.) Briefly noticed, FIR has been registered on the allegations of petitioner amassing property and wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income and by resorting to corrupt means.

(3.) Counsel would contend that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the petitioner joined Punjab Police as a Constable in the year 1972 and by dint of hard work and outstanding performance, petitioner earned promotions up to the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police. Various commendation certificates were awarded to the petitioner during his service tenure. Between the years 2007-2011 petitioner is stated to have posted as Superintendent of Police, Vigilance at Ludhiana, Ferozepur and at Jalandhar. It is further urged that the service record of the petitioner has been without blemish. Petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 31.12.2012 from the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police and thereafter granted extension in service for a period of two years. Counsel argues that the FIR in question is the result of victimization inasmuch as the petitioner had interrogated one Sh. Bharat Inder Singh Chahal, who was holding a Minister's rank and was Advisor to the Chief Minister, State of Punjab during the previous Congress regime in the State during the years 2002 to 2007 and now that the Congress Party has returned to power in the State of Punjab, a false case has been foisted upon the petitioner so as to settle scores. Counsel further contends that the FIR has been registered in pursuance to a complaint having been filed with the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab by Sarabjit Singh Grewal, a permanent resident of U.S.A and who is related to Bharat Inder Singh Chahal. Counsel argues that even though, a vigilance inquiry is stated to have been conducted but the petitioner was only called once by the Inquiry Officer and wherein complete information had been furnished by the petitioner as regards the details of assets owned by him as also his family members. It is urged that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation and under such circumstances he be protected with an order of anticipatory bail.