In CRM-M-32417 of 2021 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- P&H HC makes interim anticipatory bail granted to former Punjab DGP Sumedh Singh Saini, absolute in corruption case after considering his cooperation in investigation
Justice Avneesh Jhingan [14-09-2022]

Read Order: Sumedh Singh Saini v. State of Punjab

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, September 15, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made absolute, the interim anticipatory bail granted to Sumedh Singh Saini, the former Director General of Police, Punjab in relation to a corruption case initially registered against Nimrat Deep Singh, Executive Engineer, PWD (B&M) Department and his father, in which the petitioner’s name surfaced because of huge amount of transactions which took place between the petitioner and Nimrat Deep Singh’s father. 

The Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held, “From the reading of the pleadings, it is forthcoming that the petitioner had joined the investigation, co-operated and handed over the required documents which have been sent for forensic report. Considering that the petitioner has cooperated in the investigation and his custody as on date is not required, the interim anticipatory bail granted vide orders dated 12.8.2021 and 28.4.2022 are made absolute.”

An FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [as amended Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018] and Sections 109 and 120-B IPC arose from a vigilance enquiry initiated against Nimrat Deep Singh, Executive Engineer, PWD (B&M) Department (first accused) and his father-Surinderjit Singh Jaspal [second accused], retired Lecturer from Government College Gurdaspur for possessing assets disproportionate to his (first accused’s) known sources of income. There were thirty-five properties owned by them and they also had twenty-two bank accounts having deposits running into Crores. 

The second accused sold a piece of land to WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd. (‘WWICS') showing himself to be the owner, whereas the land was in the name of Surinderjit Singh and Sons (HUF) through Karta-Surinderjit Singh Jaspal. During the probe, it was revealed that the second accused purchased a house in Sector 20-D, Chandigarh with the money received from WWICS. The allegations were that the sale consideration was less than the Collector's rates fixed. After demolition, the house was re-constructed for which the amounts received from WWICS and from the petitioner from August, 2018 to September, 2019 were utilised. 

It was the case of the second accused that the petitioner was residing in his house as a tenant on the first floor under an eleven month rent agreement. Allegedly, Rs 6,40,00,000were transferred by the petitioner through various transactions in favour of his landlord.

Later, the accused sold a house to the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs 10,25,00,000. An unregistered agreement to sell which was made on plain paper was produced. The petitioner paid Rs.40,00,000/- through RTGS and was to pay Rs 5,12,50,000/- before March 2020 including the earnest money. The balance amount was to be paid before registration of the sale deed, the date for which was fixed on or before October 2021. According to the FIR, an amount of Rs. 75,00,000 was transferred back from the seller to the petitioner through RTGS in September, 2020. 

The petitioner approached the High Court for the grant of anticipatory bail to him. 

Before the Court, his counsel submitted that during the petitioner’s time in the vigilance Bureau, a bunch of criminal cases were registered against members of the political party, hence, the petitioner was made a victim of political vendetta by falsely implicating him in multiple FIRs. The Counsel added that the property in question as also the financial transactions were in Chandigarh but the FIR was registered at Mohali. 

Justifying the financial transactions, the Counsel added that the petitioner had a meritorious tenure in his service and he was categorised as Z-plus protectee. He argued that the petitioner had imminent threats to his life from anti-social elements, thus, it became difficult for him to find a house on rent. It was the result of pressing needs that the petitioner agreed to pay a heavy amount of security in advance and exorbitant rent for getting an accommodation in Chandigarh. 

Further, it was argued that all the transactions pointed out in the vigilance enquiry or in the FIR were banking transactions and the sources of the same were explained by the petitioner in his pleadings. He argued that before the last date of registration of the sale deed, the house was attached. Lastly, the Counsel contended that the vigilance enquiry and the FIR was with regard to amassing of disproportionate assets to known sources of income of the first accused. The contention is that naming petitioner in this FIR is only a blatant attempt to arrest him

On the contrary, the State Counsel argued that there were suspicious transactions made by the petitioner and made up documents like agreement to sell was produced. It was argued that the agreement to sell itself was doubtful as a person purchasing a property worth Rs.10,25,00,000/- was making an agreement to sell on a plain paper. It was also argued that to ensure that no trail was left of the transactions, no TDS (tax deducted at source) was deducted by the petitioner while paying monthly rent. The suspicion was that the petitioner was using his black money to plough it back as white money. It was during the inquiry of disproportionate assets of the first accused that transactions between the petitioner and the second accused came to notice. 

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that the vigilance enquiry was initiated against the first accused for having disproportionate assets to his known sources of income and during this enquiry, the rent agreement and agreement to sell regarding the house in Sector 20-D, Chandigarh surfaced. It was noted that the nomination of the petitioner in the FIR was on the basis of two agreements and transactions between the petitioner and the second accused. The transactions making the foundation for naming the petitioner in the FIR were through a banking channel. 

Further, taking conceptuous of the facts and circumstances, antecedents of the petitioner and that he was having Z-plus protection, the Court observed that there was no chance of his absconding. The Court noted that though there was an apprehension raised that the petitioner was ploughing back the black money but it was observed that the allegations were based upon documentary evidence and the banking transactions. 

“For joining loose ends, if any with regard to the documentary evidence or banking transactions, this court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required”, held the Bench while granting interim bail subject to his joining investigation within one week. He was directed to join the investigation as and when called for. 

Also, the investigation of the FIR against the petitioner was directed to be undertaken by the Special Investigation Team headed by Mr. S.S. Srivastava ADGP (Intelligence), Punjab and in pursuance of this, an SIT was constituted. 

Through the instant order, the above-stated orders granting interim anticipatory bail were made absolute by the Court on the ground that the petitioner had joined the investigation, co-operated and handed over the required documents which were sent for forensic report. 

“In case of arrest of petitioner in FIR No.11 of 17.9.2020, he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. He is directed to join the investigation as and when called for. He shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”, the Bench held.