TARSEM LAL SINGLE Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I dispose of two bail applications Crl. Misc. No. 28700-M of 1998 filed by Tarsem Lal Singla son of Bant Ram and Crl. Misc. No. 30906-M of 1998 filed by Amarjit Singh Dhingra son of Attar Singh, as both the applications have arisen from case FIR No. 2 dated 23.9.1998, registered in Police Station Vigilance, U.T. Chandigarh, u/ss 13(1)(B)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with sections 409/406/420/467/471/120-B, IPC. These two applications are being disposed of with the assistance rendered by Mr. R.S. Ghai, Sr. Advocate (assisted by Mr. Bipan Ghai, Advocate), on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. R.S. Rai, Standing Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh.

(2.) THE FIR was registered on the basis of an inquiry conducted on the written complaint of one M/s ESS VEE Enterprises, which was received in the Vigilance Cell on 9.4.1997 from the Home Department. In the complaint several serious allegations were levelled against K.K. Jerath, the then Chief Engineer and others for their alleged acts of omission and commission and it was stated that undue favours, etc. had been shown to M/s Sandeep and Co., for the allotment of tender/work in the construction of Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. The inquiry was conducted by Shri Kulwant Singh, Inspector, Vigilance Cell, who during the course of inquiry took into possession the relevant record and also recorded the statements of the witnesses and ultimately it transpired that M/s Sandeep and Co., which was a private contractor, was obliged for doing the construction work in the Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, when the said company was not eligible to apply as an 'A' class contractor, as it had not performed pre-qualification criteria for work. Also, it was found during the course of inquiry that Amarjit Singh Dhingra in connivance with K.K. Jerath had obliged the proprietors of M/s Sandeep and Co. by allotting the work of Rs. 81 lacs and an excess payment amounting to Rs. 51 lacs was allegedly made on the calculations made by Amarjit Singh Dhingra as he was the Incharge for the implementation of the construction.

(3.) WHILE deciding the bail applications of the petitioners, I have kept one criteria in view, i.e. as to whether the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary in public interest. This is the latest dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When a public money is being allegedly devolved and the extent of that public money runs into lacs, the persons who are responsible for the disbursement of said public funds in the opinion of this court do not deserve the concession of bail. Of course, it is a discretionary relief but this discretion has to be exercised in a judicious manner. Now, it is to be seen as what is the role played by each of the petitioners. Admittedly, Tarsem Lal Singla was not a public servant. He was simply a contractor. If, he was not eligible as per the allegations of the prosecution to apply for the contract, who were the persons responsible to declare him eligible. It was the public servant. But for the active role played by the public servant, Tarsem Lal Singla would not have got the work. If due to the acts of omission and commission, public funds to the tune of Rs. 51 lacs have been disbursed, the said public servant does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. As I have stated above, this burden is upon Amarjit Singh Dhingra and K.K. Jerath.