Brij Mohan Singh v. State Of Haryana

2023:PHHC:148583

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 248-1 CRM-M-48643-2023 Date of Decision: 22.11.2023 Brij Mohan Singh ......... PeƟƟoner

Versus

State of Haryana ......... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aastha Sahotra, Advocate and Ms. Rashi Sherawat, Advocate for the peƟƟoner.

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) FIR No.

Dated Police StaƟon SecƟons 06.09.2023 AnƟ CorrupƟon Bureau, Karnal 7, 8, 13 of PrevenƟon of CorrupƟon Act, 1988 and 120-B IPC 1.

The peƟƟoner apprehending the arrest in the FIR capƟoned above, has come up before this Court under SecƟon 438 CrPC seeking bail. 2.

Vide order dated 26.09.2023, this Court had granted interim bail to the peƟƟoner which is conƟnuing Ɵll date.

3.

In compliance of order dated 21.11.2023 passed by this Court, the peƟƟoner is present in the Court.

4.

ProsecuƟon's case is that Neeraj Gaur and Brij Mohan Singh (present peƟƟoner) are Director and OperaƟon Sales Manager respecƟvely of M/s Mygene Life SoluƟon Company who are channel partner of Thermofisher ScienƟfic Company (Invitrogen Bioservices India Pvt. Ltd.) in whose favour rate contract was awarded and it is manifestly clear from the video recording of conversaƟon between Dr. Rajiv Kawatra and the present applicants as also Chandra Bhanu, official of Thermofisher ScienƟfic Company that undue JYOTI 2023.11.22 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-48643-2023 -22023:PHHC:148583 advantage had been demanded by Dr. Anita Kadiyan in the maƩer of award of rate contract for the purchase of DNA/PCR kits and its supply. Even at the Ɵme when the meeƟng was held at Chandigarh for finalizaƟon of bid for rate contract, Dr. Anit Kadiyan is shown to have met Brij Mohan Singh at a coffee shop in Panchkula which was followed by subsequent visits by the peƟƟoner to her residence where in compliance of demand made by Dr. Anita Kadiyan a sum of Rs.11 lacs bribe was paid to her by the peƟƟoner with the acƟve complicity and connivance of Neeraj Gaur and co-accused Chandra Bhanu. 5.

In the enƟrety of facts and circumstances, considering the fact that peƟƟoner appeared to have been compelled to pay the bribe, the present peƟƟon is allowed and interim order dated 19.09.2023 is made absolute subject to the condiƟon that in case the peƟƟoner does not mend his ways and repeats the offence or indulge in criminal behaviour, then in all future maƩers, the concerned courts shall keep it in mind that this Court had advised the peƟƟoner not to repeat the offence but he did not heed to such advice. It is further clarified that peƟƟoner is directed to join invesƟgaƟon as and when called upon to do so by the invesƟgator.

6.

State counsel submits that the order of granƟng bail to the peƟƟoner should not be taken as precedent while considering the bail of main accused. Request is genuine and the same is allowed. Since the case of the peƟƟoner is on different fooƟng, as such, this order shall not be taken as precedent.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 22.11.2023 JyoƟ-II Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No JYOTI 2023.11.22 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.