Rupinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 27.11.2024 Rupinder Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) 1.

This is the petition filed by the petitioner seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.35 dated 02.08.2024 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(1)(a) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau District Patiala. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who has been working as Security Supervisor in Punjabi University, Patiala, following his retirement from the Army, has been falsely implicated in the present case for allegedly forging certificates of his son and his domestic help, and thereafter managing to secure government jobs for both these persons. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has had a unblemished record while

-2serving in the Army, which further lends credence to his innocence in the present case. Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution hinges on documentary evidence, which has already been collected by the investigating agency, and is part of the challan, which already stands presented before the trial Court concerned. Hence, there is no possibility of the petitioner tampering with any evidence. A prayer, therefore, has been made, in the aforementioned facts and circumstances, to enlarge the petitioner on bail as he has now been in custody since 06.08.2024 and charges are likely to be framed only on the next date of hearing i.e. 30.11.2024.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR in question (Annexure P-1), which stands reproduced as under: "From the inquiry conducted in complaint No.513/2023 Patiala which has been conducted by Station House Officer Vigilance Bureau Patiala, Patiala Range, it has been found that from the year 2011 upto the year 2021 Punjabi University Patiala had engaged security guards and safai sevak through contractual process by floating ETender and through manual process. To appoint them Vice Chancellor Punjabi University Patiala had constituted a committee of which Dean Academic Affairs, Chairman, Registrar, Finance Officer, Security Officer and Officer Incharge Campus upkeep were members. This committee had issued technical and financial bid L-1 and had recommended the firms for engagement and after approval

-3from the Vice Chancellor an agreement was effected during this period with five firms. Rupinder Singh Security Supervisor filled the forms of his son Gurpreet Singh and of Kuldeep Kaur who used to work as a domestic help in his house and he had submitted the forms after filling them to the firms. He used to obtain the recruitment forms from the firms and used to fill them and also attached documents with them on the basis of which he got both of them appointed as security guards. Rupinder Singh used to maintain the daily duty/loose register for maintaining duty points and time duration of the security guards by getting their signatures and on the basis of the same the attendance of the security guards was marked in the government register (Punjabi University Employees attendance register) and used to send the register to the firms.

Gurpreet Singh, who is son of Rupinder Singh, had went abroad in the month of August 2015 and Kuldeep Kaur is less educated and is working as a maid in his house. For this work Rs.1000/- were settled and he signed on her behalf regarding her attendance in the daily duty/loose register. The total salary of Kuldeep Kaur from December 2019 upto September 2021 for about 25 months comes to about Rs.2,56,624/- and qua Gurpreet Singh the total salary from September 2015 to June 2021 for 65 months comes to about Rs.6,07,448/-. From the statement of account of Kuldeep Kaur, a total amount of Rs.1,84,994/-, which is salary for 19 months is found to have been credited in her bank account No. 65159139971 with State Bank of India Branch Bahadurgarh and a total amount of Rs.6,37,615/- is found to have been credited in the bank account No.

55142942157 of Gurpreet Singh as total salary for 69 months.

-4his position and has prepared the documents for appointment of his son Gurpreet Singh and of Kuldeep Kaur, has himself signed in the daily duty register/loose register against the duty points, has sent the attendance reports to the firms under his signatures and has himself used the money after withdrawing the same from their bank accounts (Rs.1,84,994/-and Rs.6,37,615/- respectively). By doing so, Rupinder Singh security supervisor Punjabi University Patiala has committed offences under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(1)(a) read with section 13(2) of PC Act 1988 as amended vide PC Act Amendment Act 2018.

Therefore the ruqa is being sent against Rupinder Singh Security Supervisor Punjabi University Patiala through senior constable Harjinder Singh 835/Sangrur to Police Station Vigilance Bureau Patiala Range, Patiala for registration of a case. After registering the FIR under the above mentioned provisions copy of the FIR be sent to me. Special reports be issued. I shall myself conduct investigation. During investigation if the role of some other officer/employee is found then action will be taken against him as per law. Today in the office of Vigilance Bureau Patiala Range Patiala.

Sd/-" Learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner on the basis of forged documents had managed to get employment for his son, who was not living in India; thereafter had been illegally drawing salary in the name of his son; in addition, the petitioner had also managed to secure a job for his domestic help, and instead had been swallowing her salary too.

-5evidence, which is already part of the challan. Learned State counsel has also not disputed the custody period of the petitioner and submitted that as many as 28 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5.

The petitioner has been in custody since 06.08.2024. The case of the prosecution is primarily based on documentary evidence, which is part of the challan. Hence, there is no possibility of the petitioner tampering with evidence after he is enlarged on bail. 6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

7.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

27.11.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No