Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sukhwinder Singh, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 7, 7A and 13(1)(a)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with Section 120-B IPC, to which Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC were subsequently added.

The FIR originated during the investigation of another corruption case wherein a co-accused contractor disclosed the existence of a diary allegedly recording illegal payments made to senior Forest Department officials, political persons and their associates. Based on this disclosure, the investigating agency recovered the diary, which allegedly contained entries relating to illegal felling of khair trees, transfer of officers, bribery, procurement of tree guards, plantation-related embezzlement, forged expenditure records, land levelling works and mining activities.

During the investigation, allegations surfaced against the petitioner, who was serving as Forest Range Officer, Budhlada, regarding procurement of tree guards through allegedly non-existent firms using forged GST registrations, fabricated purchase bills and fake banking transactions. The prosecution alleged that Government funds were diverted through official accounts into another bank account and subsequently withdrawn in cash.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite allegations of corruption, forgery and embezzlement of Government funds.
  2. Whether continued judicial custody was justified after completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet.
  3. Whether the principle of parity with co-accused already granted bail was applicable in the petitioner's case.

 

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner contended that:

  • He was not originally named in the FIR and was implicated only during the course of investigation.
  • He had been in custody since 29.08.2022.
  • He had already undergone eight days of police remand.
  • No recovery had been effected from him during custodial interrogation.
  • The investigation against him had been completed and the challan had already been filed on 22.11.2022.
  • He was no longer required for further investigation.
  • The Divisional Forest Officer, who was the sanctioning authority, had not been arrested.
  • Several co-accused persons had already been granted regular bail by the High Court, entitling him to similar relief on the ground of parity.

 

Respondent's Arguments

The State opposed the grant of bail by submitting that:

  • The petitioner played a significant role in the alleged Forest Department scam.
  • Fake firms with forged GST numbers, fabricated mobile numbers and bogus purchase bills were used to create false records.
  • Government funds meant for procurement of tree guards were allegedly transferred through manipulated banking transactions and withdrawn in cash.
  • No actual RTGS payments were made to the purported suppliers, who were found to be non-existent.
  • The petitioner failed to verify the authenticity of suppliers despite being responsible for the procurement process.
  • The investigation disclosed forged documents, fake invoices and fabricated financial transactions indicating serious economic offences involving public money.

 

Court Order / Findings

The High Court observed that:

  • The petitioner had already undergone police remand and no recovery had been effected from him.
  • He had remained in custody since 29.08.2022.
  • The investigation against him stood substantially completed and the challan had already been presented.
  • Questions relating to the genuineness of firms, GST registrations and documentary evidence would be examined during trial based on evidence led by the parties.
  • Multiple co-accused involved in the same case had already been granted regular bail by the Court.
  • Applying the principle of parity and considering that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the petitioner deserved the concession of regular bail.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail upon furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds, while clarifying that the observations made in the order would not influence the merits of the trial.

 

Important Clarification

  • Grant of bail does not amount to an adjudication on the merits of the allegations.
  • The authenticity of the alleged fake GST registrations, forged invoices, banking transactions and procurement records will be determined during the course of trial.
  • The Court emphasized that disputed questions of fact require appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively decided at the stage of bail.
  • Completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet and parity with similarly placed co-accused were significant considerations for granting regular bail.

 

Sections Involved

  • Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Sections 7, 7A & 13(1)(a)(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
  • Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471, Indian Penal Code, 1860


Link to download the order -
https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1782983300_142compressed.pdf

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.