Introduction:
In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to Ajay Kumar, a Junior Engineer posted in the Municipal Council, Khanna, accused of embezzling ₹3.17 lakhs while floating a tender worth ₹4.20 lakhs. The case involved allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with the petitioner arguing that multiple inquiries on the same allegations violated his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while delivering the judgment, emphasized the importance of protecting constitutional rights and ensuring that investigations are conducted fairly and reasonably without subjecting the petitioner to undue harassment. The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation, which formed a significant basis for granting bail.
Arguments of Both Sides:
Ajay Kumar, represented by senior counsel Mr Bipan Ghai, argued that multiple inquiries based on the same allegations contravened the principles of justice and the law as per a notification issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab, dated April 1, 2008. Citing the precedent set in Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. [CRM-M-18244-2008], the petitioner contended that repeated inquiries not only lead to harassment but also delay the conclusion of investigations and trials. Furthermore, Kumar demonstrated bona fide intentions by agreeing to join and cooperate with the investigation.
On the contrary, the State counsel, Mr Jaspal Singh Guru, opposing the bail plea, argued that the allegations against Kumar were serious, involving public funds and corruption. The State submitted that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the extent of embezzlement and the roles of other individuals allegedly involved in the conspiracy.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Sandeep Moudgil carefully weighed the arguments presented by both sides. The Court took note of the fact that multiple inquiries into the same allegations were prima facie unwarranted and amounted to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Court emphasized that an FIR must precede any formal investigation and that initiating repeated inquiries without registering an FIR contravenes the law.
The Court also referred to the Jaswinder Singh case, reiterating that multiple inquiries could be a source of abuse and harassment for the accused, as well as a delay in justice. Justice Moudgil noted that the petitioner had shown bona fide intentions to cooperate with the investigation, which further negated the need for custodial interrogation.
Moreover, the Court observed that the allegations against Ajay Kumar were primarily based on records that could be verified without requiring his custody. The State had failed to provide any compelling reason why custodial interrogation was essential. Considering these factors, the Court granted anticipatory bail to Ajay Kumar, ensuring that he would remain available for investigation and cooperate fully with the authorities.