N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. Petitioner a senior police officer, presently posted as Director General Prisons, Haryana, has approached this Court for grant of bail in a case registered under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. As per the case of the petitioner a false and frivolous case has been registered at the behest of a senior functionary of the police department Shri V.N. Negi, who had been nursing vendetta against him since the petitioner was appointed as Director General of Police. A perusal of the first information report lodged by one Shri Surinder Singh is per se a fabricated document with the sole aim to defame the petitioner and to lower him in the eyes of his colleagues as well as the public. The story as set up in the first information report is that one Surinder Singh, a person dealing in export of cloth approached him for extension of parole of his friend Gurpreet Singh, who was undergoing a life imprisonment for 20 years. According to Surinder Singh the petitioner is alleged to have asked him to contact at Delhi and thereafter a sum of Rs. 1 lac was stated to have been demanded for a favour to extend the parole of Gurpreet Singh for another five weeks. Whole deal was struck off at Hilton Hotel for an amount of Rs. 50,000/. Since Surinder Singh did not give this bribe of Rs. 50,000/ to the petitioner he approached the police department to take appropriate action in the matter i.e. he be caught red handed. It is in this background that the alleged trap was laid down and the money is stated to have been recovered in a brief case opened at the instance of the petitioner.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the version as given in the first information report per se appears to be a cooked up story. It is quite unthinkable that a person of the rank of a Director General of Police would ever agree to meet Gurpreet Singh, a life prisoner, and that too at the behest of one Surinder Singh, with whom the petitioner had no link whatsoever. So, the story set up by the prosecution that the petitioner agreed to extend the period of parole, subject to their paying a sum of Rs. 50,000/ is too crude to be believed. Otherwise too, even the later part of the story set up that the petitioner while in judicial custody escaped and got himself admitted in P.G.I. is quite strange to be believed especially when the petitioner was under surveillance while he was being treated for his heart ailment in Government Hospital at Panchkula. Besides it, as has been found by the Doctors, the petitioner was a patient of unstable angina and precisely for this reason was referred to the P.G.I. for complete examination. Doctors at P.G.I. after having examined the petitioner have come to the conclusion that he needs to be continued with the treatment proposed as well as to report for periodic follow up for further treatment.
4. Lastly, the counsel argued that since the petitioner is in judicial custody, per se suggests that he is no more required for any further investigation by the police and so in the context of the present case the petitioner deserves the concession of bail.
5. This prayer has been strongly opposed by the counsel representing the State of Haryana. Reply has been filed by Shri Alok Kumar Roy, IPS, Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner on account of his high status, if ordered to be released, is likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Even during investigation when the raiding party recovered brief case at his residence he alongwith his family members resisted the opening of the brief case and further threatened the small functionaries of the police department with dire consequences, if they do not stop conducting the proceedings. The petitioner''s threatening attitude compelled the raiding party to request the Superintendent of Police for effecting the investigation and precisely for this reason the petitioner was taken in custody and brought to the police station and then asked to open the brief case which contained the currency notes of various denominations which were sprinkled with Phenolphthalein Powder. Not only this, the petitioner, who was admitted in General Hospital, Panchkula, where a guard of Police Officer was posted, ran away from lawful custody of the guard and got himself admitted in P.G.I. and so a case under Sections 332, 353, 224/34 IPC was registered against the petitioner and his two sons and three commandos. Thus, keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Elaborating, the counsel argued that since there are serious charges of corruption against the petitioner which have yet to be thoroughly probed, his release is likely to hinder the investigation; which is being carried on. In fact, this Court in Shri Onkar Chand v. The State of Punjab, 1977 PLR 564 (though a case for grant of anticipatory bail) held as under :
"I am not oblivious of the fact that this very Court has been granting anticipatory bail to persons charged of high corruption, but speaking for myself, I am of the view that if the nation is to be saved the spectre of unrest and despondency of the preemergency days, then the Courts have to take a very grave view of cases involving corruption charges. The Courts have to be very wary of throttling the legitimate investigation of such cases. In a society where telling lies is almost practiced as virtue, truth can be disgorged only under sustained crossexamination by the investigating officer. The Courts should endeavour to avoid taking of either such a restrictive view of the salutary bail provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code as to render itself impotent to protect an innocent person from harassment, or such a permissive view as to grant bail, anticipatory or otherwise, merely for the asking and halt even the legitimate investigation in its tracks and thereby encourage the persons, with allegations of corruption against them, to mock at the investigating agency and the society and having successfully stalled the effective investigation of the case, manage to go scot free with the loot sufficient to last for generations to come."
6. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the apex Court in Mool Chand v. The State through the Director, C.B.I., AIR 1992 SC 1618, wherein the allegations were that the accused deals illegally in foreign exchangeHawala transaction.
7. Petitioner in the instant case firstly applied for grant of anticipatory bail which was granted by Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 11.12.1996 but before he could derive any benefit of the interim relief granted by the Court he had already been taken in custody and so the same became infructuous. On arrest, the petitioner was sent to Government Hospital, Panchkula, for medical examination as he had complained of pain and perspiration. Doctor examining him recorded his ECG as well as blood pressure. Petitioner''s blood pressure was recorded as 230/130 mg. He was put on medicines. Since the petitioner was not feeling normal, he was referred to emergency in P.G.I. for cardiac monitoring and further management. On the same day, at about 10.00 P.M. he was admitted to the P.G.I. The parties differ whether he went of his own bypassing the security arrangements or the authorities were callous in not taking him to the P.G.I. despite the report of the Doctor attending him and suggesting immediate reference at 3.30 P.M. on 11.12.1996.
8. During the pendency of the petition for bail, the petitioner filed an application of interim bail. The matter came up for hearing before my brother Shri V.K. Jhanji, J. on 26.12.1996. Notice to Advocate General, Haryana was issued for 28.12.1996. On 28.12.1996 the Court after hearing the parties directed the Director of P.G.I. Chandigarh to constitute a Board of Doctors to determine as to whether petitioner needs special heart treatment and to submit the report by 30th of December, 1996 before 12.30 P.M. It was further directed that respondentState will not remove the petitioner from Hospital till further directions in this regard are given by the Court. Case was adjourned to 30.12.1996. On 30.12.1996 report of the Medical Board was received. Medical Board was of the view that whereas the petitioner needs to continue with his treatment and has to report for a periodic follow up for treatment, no surgical treatment or angioplasty is contemplated. To a specific query, the Board opined "There is no need for any other specialised heart treatment for Mr. Ramesh Sehgal at the present time". Keeping in view the opinion of the Board, the petitioner''s prayer to be released on interim bail for his treatment in Escorts or in any other specialised Hospital at Delhi was not accepted i.e. prayer made in the application was declined by the Court (Crl. Misc. Nos. 24027 and 24028 of 1996).
9. A perusal of the medical report submitted by the Medical Board state that the petitioner is a patient of hypertension who requires medical treatment with drugs as prescribed. Doctors are further of the opinion that he has no abnormal ECG whereas coronary angiography does not show any obstruction in the coronary arteries. Since the coronary arteries are normal, no surgical or other such treatment is suggested. Thus, on perusal of the report one can form a view that whereas the petitioner is a patient of hypertension the ailment is not serious as to require any surgical treatment. It is often found that an anxiety or sensitiveness in the temperament at times leads to rise in blood pressure. So, this plea on the ground of ailment by itself may not be sufficient to entitle a person for the grant of bail.
10. Case as set up by the State is based upon the complaint filed by Surinder Singh, an exporter of cloth, regarding an alleged deal struck off between the two for extension of parole of a life prisoner on his paying a sum of Rs. 50,000/ as bribe. This precise matter of course is yet to be examined by the Court on the basis of evidence which the parties will lead. The recovery of Rs. 50,000/ has already been made. No further investigation is envisaged as at the outset no police remand had been sought of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody. The only apprehension expressed by the counsel for the State is that petitioner on account of his high status is likely to overawe the witnesses and otherwise interfere with the further investigation. Per se I find no substance in this vague allegation. Nothing has been brought on record till today that petitioner has tried to interfere with the investigation of the case. It has not even been suggested that the petitioner has approached one or the other person (again highly placed officials) who are stated to have attested the recoveries alleged to have been effected from the petitioner. Thus, taking a cumulative view of the matter, especially the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody, I find no reasonable ground to decline the petitioner the relief of bail pending trial. Accordingly, I accept the petition and order for release of the petitioner subject to his furnishing a bond to the satisfaction of CJM, Ambala.
