Sanjiv Kumar v. State Of Punjab

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 30.09.2024 Sanjiv Kumar ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Arora and Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepender Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

***** FIR NO.

DATE POLICE STATION OFFENCES 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act as amended by P.C.

(Amendment) Act, (Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC added later on) 0018 12.10.2022 Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-I, District SAS Nagar Mohali GURVINDER SINGH GILL , J . (Oral) 1.

The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.

- 2 - 2.

The FIR in question was lodged on the allegations that Girish Verma, Executive Officer, Zirakpur had amassed wealth beyond his known sources of income by way of misusing his position and had collected huge amounts of money by resorting to corrupt means. The accounts of Girish Verma pertaining to the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2021 were checked with regard to his income and expenditure and from which it was revealed that while the said Officer had a total income of Rs.7,95,76,097/- during the said check period from his known sources of income, but during the said period his expenditure worked out to Rs.15,11,15,448/-. In other words, it was found that he had spent an amount of Rs.7,15,39,352/- (89.90%) in excess of his income.

It is further the case of prosecution that the money collected by Girish Verma through corrupt means was shown in the accounts or adjusted with the help of his wife Sangeeta Verma, his son Vikas Verma, Gourav Gupta, Ashu Goyal, Ashish Sharma, Pawan Kumar Sharma, Jasvir Singh, Baljit Singh, Mandeep Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Narinder Pal Singh etc. It is further the case of prosecution that Girish Verma had got transferred hefty amounts from various persons in his bank accounts and also in the accounts of his son Vikas Verma and his wife Sangeeta Verma through RTGS so as to show that the said money had been earned by legitimate means.

3.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the instant case by leveling allegations to the effect that the petitioner had facilitated the

- 3 - main accused Girish Verma in channelizing his ill-gotten wealth. Learned senior counsel submitted that it is Girish Verma, who being the public servant, is the main accused in the instant case primarily lodged against him with the allegation that he had amassed Rs.8 crores of ill-gotten wealth, whereas there is no such allegation that the petitioner had also benefited from the said wealth. It has further been submitted that since the main accused himself as well as several other co-accused have already been granted bail, the petitioner, who is behind bars since the last about 4 month also deserves the same concession on grounds of parity.

4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to the enormity of the offence wherein the prime accused Girish Verma had amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.8 crores disproportionate to his known sources of income and the petitioner had facilitated the main accused in showing the wealth to have been acquired by legitimate means, his complicity is clearly evident. Learned State counsel has, however, has not disputed the fact that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 4 months and that he is not involved in any other case.

5.

This Court has considered rival submissions.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that it is Girish Verma, who being the public servant, is the prime accused and while also noticing that said Girish Verma as well

- 4 - as several other co-accused have already been granted the concession of bail, the petitioner also deserves the same concession. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

30.09.2024 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No