High Courts(1998) 06 P&H CK 0016

Bimal Gupta vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 June 1998 · Citation: (2000) 3 AICLR 520

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.Rai, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 13626-M of 1998 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 13627 of 1998

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 343 words

B. Rai, J.

1.

Crl.M. No. 13627/1998

Allowed as prayed for. Annexure P1 is ordered to be placed on record.

Crl.M. No. 13626M/1998

The petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No. 42 dated 5.5.1998 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC and under Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered in P.S. Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar against the petitioner M/s Apollo Processor Private Limited, of which the petitioner is Managing Director. It is alleged that the company was committing theft to electricity and were found to have committed the theft of energy worth Rs. 1.00 lac. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was considered by the Chief Engineer, Grid Power Board, Amritsar on 23.1.1988 and a penalty of Rs. 16,70,000/ was imposed and M/s Apollo Processor Private Limited were ordered to deposit Rs. 5,56,812/ as 1/3rd of the penalty imposed and that amount was deposited on the same very date. The contention of the learned counsel for the State is that Harjeet Singh, coaccused of the present petitioner is still at large and if the petitioner is released on bail there is possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is not disputed that Harjeet Singh is an employee of the Electricity Board. It is not the case of the prosecution that he is not (sic) State pulls up its investigating agency to take effective steps to arrest the coaccused of the petitioner. For the fault of the investigating agency the petitioner who has already deposited a substantial amount as penalty cannot be allowed to suffer. It has not been pointed out as to how and in what manner the prosecution evidence is likely to the tampered with by the petitioner. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. The petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be given dasti on payment of requisite fee.