Vikramjit Singh v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-9233-2024 2024:PHHC: 036837
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9233-2024 (O&M) Date of order: 14.03.2024 Vikramjit Singh ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent (s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Anurag Chopora, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
*** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 30.08.2023 Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar 409 IPC and 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended by Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
1.
The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking bail.
2.
Vide order dated 7.3.2024, this Court considering the nature and veracity of allegations as well as the custody, granted interim bail to the petitioner primarily on the ground that the petitioner along with his spouse had voluntarily agreed to declare their assets and also to comply with other conditions mentioned in the said order. 3.
Today, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that they have complied with the conditions contained in the said interim order, declaring his assets as well as of his spouse and also submits that they would not claim it self-incriminatory or violative of their rights under Articles 20/21 of the Constitution of India, Indian Evidence Act or any other law in force.
4.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record. ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.03.15 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRM-M-9233-2024 2024:PHHC: 036837 5.
The petitioner was granted interim protection on 7.3.2024 and he along with his spouse has voluntarily declared their assets with an undertaking that for declaring assets, they would not claim any incrimination or violation of their rights under Articles 20/21 of the Constitution of India, Indian Evidence Act or any other law in force. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner and his pre-trial custody, which is more than 6 months and cannot be said to be less, his further pre-trial custody may not be justified.
6.
Given above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 7.3.2024, is made absolute. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE March 14, 2024 AK Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes Whether reportable :
No ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.03.15 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh