Sukhwinder Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Sukhwinder Singh, a former Forest Range Officer, sought regular bail in FIR No. 7 dated 06.06.2022, registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The FIR stemmed from an investigation into FIR No. 6 dated 02.06.2022, where a co-accused's statement led to the recovery of a diary detailing alleged bribes paid to senior officials and politicians. The petitioner was implicated regarding the purchase of tree guards in 2021. Allegations suggest the petitioner, posted as Forest Range Officer at Budhlada, facilitated the purchase of 2537 tree guards for Rs. 45,69,000/- from non-existent firms, M/s Ambay Cement Store and M/s Jain Cement and Accessories Store, using forged GST and mobile numbers. The funds were allegedly transferred from a government account to the petitioner's personal Axis Bank account and then withdrawn in cash.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner was arrested on 29.08.2022 and the challan was submitted on 22.11.2022. The petitioner had undergone 8 days of police remand, and no recovery was effected from him. He was in judicial custody. The Court also observed that several co-accused had already been granted regular bail by this Court. The Court found that the arguments raised by the petitioner's counsel pertained to disputed questions of fact that could only be ascertained after leading evidence during the trial. Therefore, at this preliminary stage of investigation, these arguments were not of much help to the petitioner. The Court granted bail on parity with the co-accused, after the filing of the challan, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court/duty magistrate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of embezzlement and use of forged documents in the purchase of tree guards? The petitioner argued that he was not initially named in the FIR, was arrested on 29.08.2022, and challan was submitted on 22.11.2022. He contended that no recovery was made from him, he underwent 8 days of police remand, and the Divisional Forest Officer, the sanctioning authority, has not been arrested. He also pointed out that several co-accused have been granted bail. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the allegations involved disputed questions of fact requiring evidence at trial. The State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner embezzled a huge amount by creating dummy entries based on fake and forged documents from non-existent firms with fake GST and mobile numbers. The State highlighted that the petitioner, as Forest Range Officer, had the power to purchase tree guards and was responsible for verifying the validity of the firms, especially in the absence of a tender process. The State referred to bank account records and alleged RTGS transfers to bogus firms.