Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Nitin Bansal, sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in FIR No. 7 dated 06.06.2022, registered under Sections 7, 7-A, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended by the Amendment Act, 2018, read with Section 120-B IPC. Sections 467, 420, 409, 465, 468 and 471 IPC were subsequently added.

The FIR was registered at the instance of Harvinder Pal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Unit SAS Nagar.

According to the prosecution case, during investigation of FIR No. 6 dated 02.06.2022 under Sections 7 and 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC, co-accused Harmohinder Singh, a contractor associated with the Forest Department, allegedly made a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

It was alleged that Harmohinder Singh stated that from 2017 onwards he had maintained a diary containing details regarding bribes allegedly paid from time to time to senior officers of the Forest Department, political persons and their aides. The diary was allegedly concealed in the basement of his residential house and was subsequently recovered pursuant to his statement.

According to the allegations, the diary contained references relating to:

  • Felling of Khair trees;
  • Transfer of officers;
  • Alleged bribe payments to the former Forest Minister;
  • Issuance of NOCs;
  • Purchase of tree guards;
  • Alleged embezzlement in plantation drives;
  • Alleged forgery concerning fake fencing expenses;
  • Levelling of hill areas in Mohali District; and
  • Mining-related matters.

During investigation, Harmohinder Singh allegedly disclosed that he had been involved for approximately ten years in contract work relating to felling of Khair trees. Initially, he worked with different contractors on a commission basis, and for approximately five years he had been operating as a contractor through M/s Gurhar Associates.

The prosecution allegations further stated that Khair tree-felling work was carried out from October to March and permits were required from the Forest Department. It was alleged that payments were made to different persons in connection with the work.

As recorded in the judgment, the alleged payment structure per tree was:

  • Rs. 500 to the concerned Minister;
  • Rs. 200 to the Divisional Forest Officer;
  • Rs. 100 to the Range Officer;
  • Rs. 100 to the Block Officer; and
  • Rs. 100 to the Forest Guard.

Thus, according to the allegations, a total amount of Rs. 1,000 per tree was paid. For 7,000 trees, the amount allegedly came to Rs. 70 lakh per season. It was further alleged that approximately 15 contractors were involved in the business and were required to make similar payments. Non-payment allegedly carried the risk of non-issuance of permits and imposition of heavy penalties.

Allegations Relating to the Petitioner

The petitioner was not named in the FIR. According to the prosecution allegations recorded in the judgment, his alleged involvement arose during investigation in connection with the supply of approximately 1,450 tree guards to the Forest Department.

It was alleged that during the tenure of Sangat Singh Gilzian, the former Forest Minister, tree guards were purchased for maintenance of plants. According to the allegations, District Forest Officers were directed that the tree guards to be purchased were to be supplied through a particular person, namely Sachin Kumar.

The cost of one tree guard was allegedly fixed at Rs. 2,800, out of which Rs. 800 per tree guard was allegedly to be paid to the Minister as commission. The allegations further referred to the purchase of approximately 80,000 tree guards throughout the State of Punjab and an alleged commission amount of Rs. 6.40 crore.

Insofar as the petitioner was concerned, it was alleged that M/s Mehtab Shanti Enterprises supplied approximately 1,450 tree guards and that the firm was actually operated by the petitioner, while its GST registration stood in the name of Harmesh Kumar, stated to be the father-in-law of the petitioner’s maternal cousin.

The prosecution allegations further stated that co-accused Binder Singh informed the petitioner that another co-accused, Vipul Kumar, had good acquaintance with the then Forest Minister, Sangat Singh Gilzian. It was alleged that Vipul Kumar had spoken to the Minister and that thereafter the petitioner, in connivance with the co-accused, supplied 1,450 allegedly sub-standard tree guards to the Forest Department at Rs. 2,400 per tree guard, whereas the alleged actual cost was Rs. 1,400 per tree guard.

According to the allegations, the petitioner thereby received an excess amount of Rs. 1,000 per tree guard. It was further alleged that after deduction of GST, the petitioner paid Rs. 817 per tree guard to co-accused Binder Singh in cash. The amount was allegedly deposited in cash in Binder Singh’s account, withdrawn immediately, and later allegedly paid to the concerned Minister.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising for consideration were:

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act and various provisions of the IPC.
  2. Whether the applicability of Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to the petitioner was debatable, considering the petitioner’s contention that he was a private individual and neither an employee of nor otherwise concerned with the Forest Department.
  3. Whether the petitioner’s implication, allegedly arising from the disclosure statement of a co-accused and subsequent investigative material, justified continued custody after submission of the challan.
  4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to parity in view of regular bail granted to co-accused persons.
  5. Whether the petitioner’s complicity remained debatable on the basis of the material collected by the police.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was neither an employee of the Forest Department nor had any concern with the Forest Department.

It was argued that the petitioner was a private individual and, therefore, the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act were not applicable to him.

The petitioner further contended that:

  • He was not named in the FIR;
  • He had been arrayed as an accused only on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused;
  • The allegations concerned the supply of approximately 1,450 tree guards to the Forest Department;
  • The alleged case was that a commission of Rs. 800 per tree guard had been paid for procurement of the work order;
  • The petitioner had been in custody since 06.07.2022;
  • The challan against him had already been submitted on 04.10.2022;
  • Co-accused persons had already been granted regular bail by the High Court through a common order dated 05.09.2022 in CRM-M No. 34718 of 2022 and CRM-M No. 34487 of 2022;
  • Sangat Singh Gilzian had been granted interim bail by the High Court in CRM-M No. 30346 of 2022; and
  • The petitioner claimed parity with Daljit Singh, who had also been granted regular bail by the High Court vide order dated 05.09.2022 in CRM-M No. 34487 of 2022.

The petitioner accordingly sought regular bail on the basis of the nature of the allegations, period of custody, filing of the challan and parity with co-accused.

Respondent’s Arguments

Learned State Counsel opposed the prayer for regular bail primarily on the ground of the gravity of the offence.

The State submitted information in a sealed cover before the Court. The sealed cover was opened and perused by the Court.

The Court observed that the information contained in the sealed cover was an elaboration of the stand already taken in the challan and, therefore, the same was made part of the challan.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court took note of the following material circumstances:

  • The petitioner had been in custody since 06.07.2022;
  • The challan against the petitioner had already been submitted before the Court on 04.10.2022;
  • The petitioner’s complicity would remain debatable on the basis of the material collected by the police; and
  • The Court also referred to the detailed reasons recorded in the common order dated 05.09.2022 passed in CRM-M No. 34718 of 2022 and CRM-M No. 34487 of 2022.

At the bail stage, without forming any opinion on the merits of the case, the High Court considered it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or the concerned Duty Magistrate.

Important Clarification

The High Court expressly clarified that nothing stated in the order would be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Therefore, the order granting regular bail did not amount to:

  • A finding of innocence;
  • An acquittal of the petitioner;
  • A final determination regarding the applicability of the alleged offences;
  • A final adjudication on the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement or other material collected during investigation; or
  • A conclusive determination of the prosecution allegations.

The Court’s observation that the petitioner’s complicity would remain debatable was made in the context of deciding the prayer for regular bail and not as a final adjudication of guilt or innocence.

Sections Involved

The proceedings arose in connection with allegations under the following statutory provisions:

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended by the Amendment Act, 2018:

  • Section 7
  • Section 7-A
  • Section 13(1)(a)
  • Section 13(2)

Indian Penal Code, 1860:

  • Section 120-B
  • Section 467
  • Section 420
  • Section 409
  • Section 465
  • Section 468
  • Section 471

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

  • Section 439 – Regular Bail

Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

  • Section 27 – Referred to in connection with the disclosure statement and alleged recovery of the diary

Link to download the order -https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783416445_1362compressed.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.