Yadwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

FIR No. 0275 Dated 02.08.2022 City Police Station Ferozepur, District Ferozepur Sections IPC and Section 13 of 409, 120B Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018

1. The petitioner, who was posted as an Inspector in the Department of Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs and apprehended arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Vide order dated 04.03.2024, petitioner was granted interim bail which is continuing till date.

3. In paragraph 27 of the bail petition, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Date 276 1 277 2 0169 3

02.08.2022 409, 120B IPC and 13 of PC Act 02.08.2022 409, 120B IPC and 13 of PC Act 02.08.2022 409, 120B IPC and 13 of PC Act Offences Police Station City Ferozepur City Ferozepur Sadar Ferozepur

4. The prosecution’s case is being taken from the reply dated 11.03.2024, which reads as under: - “[2]. That the present FIR No. 275 dated 02.08.2022 U/Ss. 409, 120-B IPC, 13 PC ACT, 1988 AS Amended (2018), has been registered at PS City Ferozepur on the written complaint by District Controller, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Ferozepur ANJU RANI 2024.04.16 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 CRM-M-11476-2024 2 vide its O.M No A/4/2022/5109 to SSP Ferozepur against accused and co accused namely (1) Hansraj Singh S/o Pyara Singh R/o Chimne wala, District Fazilka, (2) Hansraj S/o Mithu Ram, R/o Kala Tibba, District Fazilka (3) Baljit Ram S/o Bohar Ram, R/o 75, New Puda Avenue, Ferozepur City, (4) Baj Chand S/o Munshi Ram, R/o Ahal Bodla, District Fazilka, (5) Gulab Singh S/o Jagga Singh, R/o Village Duneke, District Moga & (6) Yadwinder Singh S/o Gurjant Singh, R/o Mehta Block Sangat, Bhatinda in regard to allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation of wheat stock pertaining to the year 2022 which was stored/lying in the Godown namely M/s Sonu Chawala Covered Godown, Firozpur City. [3]. That it is submitted that all the above mentioned accused are in the capacity/designation of "Inspector" in the abovementioned department and are the custodian of the stock which has been misappropriated and embezzelled by them. [4]. That it is submitted that on 27.07.2022 an inter district physical verification of various Godowns of district Ferozepur was carried out by the teams constituted upon the written instructions of Deputy Director (Field), Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. The physical verification of Godown M/S Sonu Chawala Covered Godown, Firozpur City was conducted by Harpreet singh, ASFO, Nihal Singh Wala and as per report submitted by him, shortage of 620 bags of wheat weighing 310 quintals was detected and due to this embezzlement, the government suffered financial loss of Rs 7,15,000/-. [5]. That it is also submitted that all the accused mentioned above were posted as inspectors and were custodian of the stock and had been declared as responsible duty bound as per OM endorsement Memo No P.A/K.KH.S/2012/6715 dated 28.09.2012 issued from the Office of Commissioner, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Punjab, Chandigarh. [6]. That all the above mentioned accused has been arrested except one namely Yadwinder Singh (Petitioner) and challan has been presented qua all the above mentioned accused except Yadwinder Singh.”

5. By referring to para 2(a) of the bail petition, the petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner was transferred from District Moga to District Ferozepur on 14.02.2019 and joined the Ferozepur District Office on 09.03.2019. Petitioner’s counsel mentioned the duties of Food Inspectors, which reads as follows: - i) Purchase of wheat (ii) Storage of wheat in Godowns (iii) Dispatch the wheat for agencies i.e. State Agencies and Centre (Specials).

6. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the District Food and Supplies Controller was supposed to conduct physical verification after six months, but the last physical check ANJU RANI 2024.04.16 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CRM-M-11476-2024 3 was done in January 2022. Petitioner’s counsel further submits that the shortfall is a failure on the part of the policy. The crop had been stored in open plinths because there was a shortage of usable protection to cover it from the monsoon and heavy rain, which damaged the stock and further created conditions of insects, rodents, birds, and even human theft. It is impossible to protect the wheat stock around the clock, and taking advantage of the slightest absence of facilities, rodents, and insects did damage in front of human eyes, and nothing can be done because of wrong security in open areas. Petitioner’s counsel submits that instead of proper godowns, which can be locked, the government initially did not make any place for proper storage, but now the burden has been on the Food Inspectors for pilferage without any evidence.

7. The petitioner's counsel further submits that the petitioner joined the Department of Food Supplies as Inspector and is presently posted in Ferozepur as an Inspector. After joining the department, the petitioner has had no adverse remarks other than the present matter about which the present FIR and the connected FIRs have been registered, and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner's counsel stated that FIR No. 275 dated 02.08.2022 P.S. City Ferozepur was registered on allegations of shortage of 620 bags of wheat weighing 310 quintals against six Food Supply Inspectors, namely, Hans Raj, Baj Chand, Gulab Singh, Hansraj Singh, Baljeet Ram, and Yadwinder Singh. Counsel submits that from the perusal of the said FIR, the assessment of shortage of grains is made based on estimated shortage rather than actual loss/ financial loss of the stock, and the stock's actual shortage and financial loss will be known after the complete withdrawal of the stock. Hence, the alleged loss is presumptive, and FIR could only be contingent on nature. The said FIR has also recorded the allegation that the alleged shortage of wheat is impossible without the connivance of the concerned labor contractor/ Labour. However, during the present investigation proceeding, the investigating agency has recorded no statement of such Labour contractor/ Labour. Nowhere throughout the FIR has the alleged loss been directly attributed to the petitioner. Counsel submits that from the bare perusal of duty, rosters dated 28.04.2022 about the godown in question issued vide order dated 29.04 2022; it is clear that the petitioner was a joint custodian along with Baljeet Ram, who is already on regular Bail. From the perusal of the Delivery Certificates dated 28.06.2022, 25.09.2022,

30.01.2022, 26.09.2022, 22.06.2022, 22.09.2022, 16.10.2022, 15.11.2022 and

29.12.2022 issued by PUNGRAIN under DFSC Ferozpur, the total bags stored in the godowns under M/s Sonu Chawla were 60525 and the total bags dispatched from the said godowns were 60751, i.e. 226 bags over the stored number of bags. Hence, plenty of grains are in the godowns under M/s Sonu Chawla. It is also submitted that as per the policy dated 09.07.2020, the petitioner was given joint charge of the godown. In case of ANJU RANI 2024.04.16 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CRM-M-11476-2024 4 scarcity of wheat, stock recovery was to be made on a man-to-man basis. Hence, the petitioner cannot be held liable for any such scarcity. As per the Counter affidavit dated

19.03.2024 filed on behalf of the state of Punjab, the petitioner has duly joined the investigation, but the investigating agency has recorded neither his involvement in the said shortage nor any adverse finding.

8. On the contrary, the State's counsel opposes the bail and states that considering the allegations, the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary. Counsel for the State opposed the bail and argued that the statement made by the petitioner is a concocted story, and even if every word is believed, the outer coverings of the jute/plastic bags would still be available unless the bags themselves had been taken away. The State has referred to the investigation and submits that all similarly placed accused were arrested and were not granted bail, and the petitioner's role is similar, and he is not entitled to anticipatory bail. State counsel submits that usually, the modus operandi of these corrupt Food Inspectors is that they steal the stock, and subsequently, whenever floods occur, they show it damaged in floods or otherwise. They have also created some incidents where they put the stock on fire to cover up deficiencies.

9. An analysis of these submissions leads to the following outcome. On 27.07.2022, when the physical verification of Godown of M/s Sonu Chawala Covered Godown, Ferozepur was conducted by ASFO and his team members, 620 bags of wheat weighing 310 quintals was detected, and against all such embezzlement loss of Rs.7,15,000/- was caused to the government. Food Inspectors were the custodians responsible for protecting the stock in terms of their duty. If any theft occurs, it is discernible because when 620 bags are taken out, the [empty] space would be visible to the naked human eye. Even if the rodents and other animals had eaten the wheat, they would not have eaten the jute or plastic bags, as the empty bags containing a few grains with tooth bites of rodents and animals can be seen. However, physical verification did not find out any such telltale science. If there was theft, the petitioner would have a certain point, but he has no such point. Therefore, the petitioner can only be connected with a few bags. He did not even file any complaint with the police and not send any information to the department. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

10. The petitioner’s counsel submits that this is joint possession, not an individual possession.

11. Counsel for the State opposes such an argument and submits that even if the possession was joint, it does not mean that all people jointly sell the stock, and if any person came to know about the pilfering of any paddy bag, he was under obligation to ANJU RANI 2024.04.16 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CRM-M-11476-2024 report the same to the department or police, which he failed to do so. 5

12. An analysis of these submissions leads to the following outcome: the petitioner’s job was to take steps to protect against pilferage, and there is primafacie evidence of his involvement in such pilferage, which eliminates the question of joint possession.

13. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner.

14. In Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529, Supreme Court holds, interrogation [16]. … We have noticed one common argument being canvassed is required and, therefore, that no custodial anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, Supreme Court

15. holds, is aggrieved ....The entire community if the economic [5]. offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest....."

16. In State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, Supreme Court holds, [6]. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in 5 ANJU RANI 2024.04.16 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11476-2024 6 disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.

17. InJai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, Supreme Court holds, [19]. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. [See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305].

18. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, Supreme Court holds, [34]. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. [35]. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.

19. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 9 SCC 24, Supreme Court holds, [70]. We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973 is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount 6 ANJU RANI 2024.04.16 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11476-2024 7 to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

20. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani, Cr.A 1148 of 2023, dated 17-04- 2023, Supreme Court, in an FIR registered under sections under Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holds, [24]. The time−tested principles are that no straitjacket formula can be applied for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court must draw a delicate balance between liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the need for a fair and free investigation, which must be taken to its logical conclusion. Arrest has devastating and irreversible social stigma, humiliation, insult, mental pain and other fearful consequences. Regardless thereto, when the Court, on consideration of material information gathered by the Investigating Agency, something more than a mere needle of suspicion against the accused, it cannot jeopardise the investigation, more so when the allegations are grave in nature. is prima facie satisfied that there [31]. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, “Corruption is a tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority.” Hence, the need to be extra conscious.

21. In the background of the allegations and the light of the judicial precedents mentioned above in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner fails to make a case for anticipatory bail.

22. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to these comments. Petition dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

16.04.2024 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: ANJU RANI 2024.04.16 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Yes YES. 7