SURINDER KUMAR SIKAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail in two cases, namely, (i) F. I. R. lodged on the basis of the report of the Divisional Commissioner Mandi, and (ii) in the F. I.R., if any, lodged on the basis of an earlier inquiry pending against him, both for the commission of offences punishable under Section 5 of the Corruption Act or any other non-bailable offences which might have been registered against him. It has been averred in the application that the petitioner who is due to retire on 31-12-1999 has been falsely implicated and is innocent and has not committed any irregularity in the purchase of cold Bitumen which has been purchased by him through negotiation and by following the proper procedure, the inquiry on the basis of which he is alleged to have made the said purchases illegally is biased, false and has been made with a view to malign the image of the petitioner without any basis. Regarding the second case it has been averred that an inquiry was ordered against the petitioner 10 years back at Kullu for collecting assets disproportionate to his income and nothing happened in that inquiry.

(2.) Against the aforesaid background it is claimed that the case has been registered against the petitioner for political reasons and he has been falsely implicated whereas he is innocent. The petitioner further claims that he is a permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh and there is no likelihood of his absconding and jumping the bail, no recovery is to be effecting from him, therefore, his custody is not required by the investigating agency and that the petitioner will join theinvestigation as and when called by the Vigilance Department and will not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the bail petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the respondent and have also gone through the relevant investigation records.