Ajit Singh Alias Laddi v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 216 (PROCEEDINGS THROUGH HYBRID MODE) CRM-M-49235-2024 Date of decision: January 22nd, 2025 Ajit Singh alias Laddi .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. M.S. Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.).

Mr. H.S. Deol, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.14 dated 23.08.2022 under Sections 7, 7(a) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Jalandhar Rural. 2.

Vide order dated 25.10.2024, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "Learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner came to be nominated as an accused in the disclosure statement made by his maternal uncle Surjit Singh. Said co-accused Surjit Singh was part of a gang of almost 34 touts, who had been luring the prospective customers for getting "fitness certificate" issued for their heavy vehicles from prime accused Naresh Klair (Motor Vehicle Inspector) and thereafter they all had been sharing the ill-gotten money by way of bribe, between themselves."

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.01.22 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-49235-2024 -2On a pointed query posed to the learned State counsel as to whether any incriminating material had been collected by the investigating agency including statement of any of the prospective customers with respect to the petitioner luring them for getting a "fitness certificate" for their heave vehicles, he, on instructions, has replied in the negative but has submitted that in the disclosure statement made by co-accused Surjit Singh, he had categorically stated that that the petitioner had been helping him in the said work of luring prospective customers for the purpose of procuring fitness certificate in exchange of extraneous considerations from the prime accused Naresh Klair.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, on the other hand, submitted that even as per the disclosure statement of co-accused Surjit Singh, only a vague claim had been made that the petitioner was helping him in the said claim."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 25.10.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.

5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 25.10.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

January 22nd, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.01.22 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh