MASOOD AHMED RAJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner accused, namely. Masood Ahmed Raja is Excise and Taxation Officer and presently posted as E.T.O. Toll Tax Post. Railway Station. Jammu. He through his brother namely, Navid Ahmed has moved this court for the grant of bail in anticipation of arrest. It is pleaded that the petitioner-accused has falsely been implicated for the commission of offence under-section 5(2)(e) Prevention of Corruption Act by registering a case under FIR No. 63/97 Vigilance Organisation. Jammu. Presently the petitioner is out of station and in his absence raid was conducted in his house and house - hold articles have been seized by drawing seizure-memos. Petitioner-accused has reflected every item which has been so seized in his property statement duly submitted from time to time-and he can satisfactorily account for those items while participating in the investigation. He is a respectable citizen of India and his arrest can adversely effect his service career and reputation. The case has - been registered against him without getting any explanation from him and is thus a pre-mature registration of the case. The investigating agency yet has not formed a conclusive opinion that the properties owned by him are disproportionate to his known income so it will be in the interest of justice that he is released on bail. Lastly, it is pleaded that this court has granted bail in anticipation of arrest on 22-12- 1997 in favour of Darbari Lal Sharma, so the petitioner accused is also entitled for such indulgence.

(2.) This petition is also accompanied by application (CMP No. 269/97) wherein the _alleged disproportionate assets in the FIR have been accounted for.

(3.) Respondent has opposed the petition by filing the objections wherein it is pleaded that the Vigilance Organisation got certain preliminary clues against the petitioner-accused for possessing assets dis-propertionate to his known source of income and on inquiry information was found to be substantial. Similar information was also gathered against some other officers and after verification cases were registered and consequently raids were conducted. That investigating agency, requires some time for questioning the petitioner-accused in order to un-earth other dis-proprtionate assets either possessed by him in his own name or in benami nature. The petitioner accused is in the habit of committing economic offences against the society and deserves no leniency from the court. Presently he has gone to Pakistan and his presence .is required for sustained interrogation. The petitioner-accused is prima facie found guilty of the offence and he is not entitled to the grant of bail. In case the petitioner-accused is granted anticipatory bail it would thwart the course of justice. That on 22-12-1997, bail was granted in favour of Darbari Lal Sharma without notice to the State and the petitioner accused cannot equate himself with the facts of that case.