9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial functions and holding the post of Electrical Engineer, indulged in corrupt criminal practices and enriched himself knowingly that even if the money was not paid to the contractor, he had nothing to lose. In this manner, he acted as a cheat, which is also why an offence under Section 420 IPC read with 120 B IPC had already been incorporated in the FIR. Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is required. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [1987 (3) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT], Supreme Court holds 'A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to the then Commissioner, MC, Sonepat namely Sh. Dharmender, Ashok Rawat, SE, Hemant, XEN, (Petitioner), SDO and two JEs to revise estimate (enhancement). As per whatsapp recording between Rambir and Dharmender Singh, (IAS) Commissioner, MC, Sonepat, the transaction of bribe amount was admitted by co-accused Dharmender Singh (IAS) and the involvement of petitioner/accused is also proved in this recording. (Annexure R-2). 3. That during investigation the relevant record from MC, Sonepat was obtained. A team was got constituted by Director General Police, Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, Panchkula. Sh. Deepak Goyal SE, Head of technical team prepared a report No. 121/SE/SVB(H) dated 13.02.2023 and found irregularities by the office of Commissioner MC, Sonepat and its officials. It revealed that the then Commissioner Dharmender Singh (IAS) MC, Sonepat, Ashok Rawat, SE, Hemant XEN (petitioner), and subordinate officials were found involved in this matter, thereby the enhancement case of Rs. 52.70 Crores was prepared to Rs. 87.85 Crores and sent the same for administrative approval to Director Urban Local Bodies Haryana, Panchkula to give undue benefits to the contractor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons told the complainant that they needed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,11,00,000/ to Rambir Sharma for getting the contract. The contract was for converting the building into a green building without any necessary approval, which would give massive profits to the contractor by enhancing the tender amount. The enhancement that was proposed was prepared to cost Rs. 87.85 crores. As per para 4 of the reply, police had arrested Sh. Dharmender Singh (IAS), during his investigation, had confessed to taking bribes and had also made a disclosure statement that even the petitioner had obtained bribe amounts in addition to other officials. In his disclosure statement, Shri Dharmender Singh, had mentioned that a bribe was also paid to Hemant (XEN) and that it would be hit by Sections 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act for the reason that no discovery of fact had taken place. Furthermore, such disclosure was not a confession under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act or 164 CrPC, but a confession before the police; as such, this Court is not relying upon the disclosure made by Shri Dharmender Singh (IAS) and is relying upon the other evidence. 9. Although the money was not paid by the exchequer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l stage itself, but unfortunately it did not happen, which ought to have happen. 11. Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is required. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner. 12. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, Supreme Court holds, [5]. ....The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest....." 13. In State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, Supreme Court holds, [6]. We find force in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 16. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 9 SCC 24, Supreme Court holds, [70]. We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973 is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 17. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani, Cr.A 1148 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
