Raj Mohan Singh, J. (Oral):— Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case bearing FIR No. 10 dated 28.05.2019, registered under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station SVB, Karnal, District State Vigilance Bureau.
2. Petitioner is a godown keeper. His competence to make payment of commission/labour/wheat would remain debatable in view of Government instructions dated 09.04.2019. According to the aforesid instructions, the payment is to be made directly by crediting in the account of the Commission Agent. The respective banks are authorised to disburse the amount directly through some integrated portal mechanism. The alleged demand was made on 27.05.2019. According to learned counsel for the petitioner it is the responsibility of the licenced Ahdati/Commission Agent to confirm the quality and quantity of wheat. Commission Agent on behalf of farmers used to transfer the same to the Corporation godown belonging to Ware Housing Corporation. I-Form is to be filled by the Commission Agent by giving details of total wheat bags and wheight and the total price for which the amount is to be received directly in the account of the Commission Agent from procurement agencies. The first I-Form No. 204 was filled on 15.5.2019 that is prior to the alleged demand. The said I-form was in respect of 620 bags, valuing Rs. 5,88,132/-. It was deposited on 20.05.2019 along with market fee in the name of complainant firm.
3. During assessment, it was found that 1300 wheat bags were infact deposited but the same was wrongly shown as 620 bags. Thereafter, second I-form No. 205 was generated and the numbering was corrected to the tune of 1300 bags for total amount of Rs. 12,33,180/-.
4. Taking into consideration the aforesaid dates of generating I-form, it would be debatable as to the complicity of the petitioner.
5. Learned State counsel on instructions from Inspector Balwan Singh states that material witnesses have already been examined and the case is fixed for 30.01.2020 for remainng prosecution witnesses. He has also admitted that the petitioner is in custody since 28.05.2019.
6. At this stage, without meaning anything on the merits of the case, it would be just and appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, Jind.
8. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall be construed to be an opinion on merits of the case.
Comments