TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of the present petition preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.1 dated 25.2.2014, under Sections 7, 13 (2) 88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Vig. Bureau Flying Squad -I, Punjab, Mohali.
(2.) BRIEF facts are that the FIR in question was registered against the present petitioner who is serving as Assistant Sub Inspector with Punjab Police on the allegations that Dalwinder Singh had submitted an application with D.S.P. Vigilance Bureau to the effect that a case of rape had been registered against some boys and the present petitioner was the Investigating Officer in such case. Dalwinder Singh had further alleged that the petitioner had been making phone calls to him and had been threatening him to involve his son Kanwaljit Singh in the rape case and, accordingly, was demanding a sum of Rs. 3 lacs. Further allegation is that complainant Dalwinder Singh met the petitioner and furnished an assurance that the first instalment towards bribe money of Rs. 1 lac would be paid on 25.2.2014. Information was stated to have been passed on by Dalwinder Singh to the Vigilance Bureau. Statement of Dalwinder Singh was recorded by Inspector Veer Pal Kaur and a plan was prepared and by sending ruqa to the Police Station, formal FIR was got registered. Thereafter, a trap was laid and the petitioner was apprehended while allegedly accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 1 lac from complainant Dalwinder Singh and in the presence of shadow witness, namely, Sitar Mohd. The tainted currency notes of anamount of Rs. 1 lac are stated to have been recovered from his possession and the petitioner has been in custody since 25.2.2014. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Towards such assertion, it has beensubmitted that both, complainant Dalwinder Singh as also shadow witness Sitar Mohd., nursed a grudge against the petitioner and were as such inimical towards him. Learned counsel contends that FIR No.66 dated 7.9.2012 had been lodged under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 21 (1) of the Mining and Mineral Development Regulation Act, 1957 on the complaint of the present petitioner against Bhasir Ahmed who happens to be the brother of the shadow witness in the present case i.e. Sitar Mohd. That apart, it is submitted that the present petitioner was also the Investigating Officer pertaining to FIR No.9 dated 24.2.2012 under Sections 323, 324, 34 of the Indian Penal Code in which son of the complainant was an accused. Accordingly, it has been argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated at the behest of complainant Dalwinder Singh and the shadow witness Sitar Mohd. 4. An additional argument raised by the learned counsel while pressing for the concession of regular bail to the petitioner is that the investigation of the FIR under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code had been handed over to CIA Kharar on 13.2.2014 i.e. prior in point of time to the trap having been laid i.e. on 25.2.2014 and as such, there was no occasion/basis for the petitioner to have sought bribe fromcomplainant Dalwinder Singh by threatening to implicate his son in the rape case. 5. Learned counsel has also placed heavy reliance upon an order dated 13.12.2012 passed by a Co -ordinate Bench in Desh Raj v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2013(1) RCR (Criminal) 346 wherein petitioner/accused who was a senior Police Officer and against whom allegation was of having demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 1 lac had been granted the concession of regular bail. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the present petition and would contend that due processhad been followed inasmuch as after the statement of the complainant, namely, Dalwinder Singh having been recorded by the concerned police official, a trap had been laid and the petitioner was apprehended red -handed and the tainted currency amounting to Rs. 1 lac upon which phenolphthalein powder had already been applied, was recovered from his possession. Learned State counsel would submit that the hands of the petitioner had been got washed in a solution of water of sodium carbonate and the colour of which had turned pink. Likewise, even the reverse side of pocket of his trousers where he had kept the tainted currency notes had also been dipped in the solution and the colour of which had turned pink. Learned State counsel would argue that keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of regular bail. State counsel has further categorically refuted the assertion made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation in the rape case of which the petitioner was theInvestigating Officer had already been transferred to CIA Kharar. State counsel would apprise the Court that the petitioner was verymuch the Investigating Officer in the rape case as on 25.2.2014 i.e. the date the trap was laid and the petitioner had been caught accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 1 lac. 7. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.8. It is by now well settled that seriousness of the charge would be one of the relevant considerations while dealing with the bail application though the same cannot be the only test or factor. The Courts would have to strike a balance between the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the Society in general. Undoubtedly, bail would be the rule and denial thereof the exception. 9. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, this Court would refrain from making any observations with regard to the assertion raised by learned counsel, of the petitioner having been falsely implicated, purportedly on account of the complainant Dalwinder Singh and shadow witness Sitar Mohd. being inimical towards him. This would be a matter to be dealt by the investigating agency and observations on such issue would not be appropriate as the same could possibly impact and influence the course of investigation. 10. Investigation in the matter is still under way. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Petitioner has allegedly been caught red -handed in a trap that was laid and tainted currency of an amount of Rs. 1 lac has been recovered from his possession. The petitioner is serving as Assistant Sub Inspector in Punjab Police. The possibility of the petitioner influencing the course of investigation if released on bail cannot be ruled out. Insofar as reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the case of Desh Raj (supra), suffice it to observe that the Co -ordinate Bench in the facts of that case had formed a view that Desh Raj would not be in a position to tamper with the evidence and interfere with the course of investigation by taking cognizance of the fact that even though the petitioner therein was a senior police officer, but the main witness i.e. the complainant was himself a police official and the other witnesses were gazetted officers of the Income Tax Department. That apart, it had been observed that the other evidence was in the shape of voice recordings, the transcript of which had been shown to the Court. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. The complainant, in the present case, is a rustic villager and so is the shadow witness. 11. In the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is a reasonable and justifiable ground to believe that in case the benefit of bail is extended to the petitioner, who happens to be an ASI with Punjab Police, he may mis -use such liberty and is likely to create a situation which would not be conducive to holding a fair investigation. 12. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to intervene and to grant benefit of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. 13. Petition dismissed.;