Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a matter pertaining to allegations against a Patwari agreeing to enter a mutation based on forged documents against taking bribe, involving First Information Report (‘FIR’) under Sections 7 and 7A of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (‘PC Act’) and Sections 420 and 120-B of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Anoop Chitkara, J. discussed in detail the government employees being more prone to entrapments and also suggested the government not to keep such employees away from sensitive positions. The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The petitioner in the instant matter was a Patwari apprehending arrest for accepting an offer of bribe of Rs.27,50,000 out of which the complainant had allegedly paid a sum of more than Rs.5,40,000. It was alleged that the petitioner did not do the needful, leading the complainant to file a complaint and consequent FIR. His anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Sessions Court; hence, he approached the High Court under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’).
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it was a well-planned, well executed trap, and the complainant and his father got indulged in these types of tactics by alluring innocent government employees. With reference to FIR registered in furtherance of the complaint filed by complainant’s father, it was submitted that such a complaint was confined to the record room because no truth was found in it. On the other hand, the State Counsel acknowledged the complaint made by complainant’s father found to be false, but further submitted that “it cannot be ground to presume that even the present complaint made by the complainant is also false.”
The Court analyzed the said argument and agreed with the submission that it could not be the ground for allowing bail for the petitioner. On the claim of FIR being a counterblast for petitioner’s refusal to succumb to the pressure exerted by the complainant, the threats about which he also wrote in his official reports, the State Counsel’s mention of a video recording made by a journalist depicting petitioner accepting Rs 40,000 at one instance and Rs 5 lakhs kept in his car. The Court watched the video and expressed that “In the video, the petitioner admits that the complainant wants him to attest a mutation based on forged sale deeds, although he says that they have offered money to him, but he had refused; the later part of the video denies the petitioner’s denial and instead points out towards petitioner’s admission about receipt of the money. This video clip of 11 min 55 seconds makes it clear that the complainant is immoral, unethical, and a person with highly dubious credentials; however, the conversation that has been recorded clearly points out towards the petitioner’s guilt.”
The Court perused the prosecution case through status report dated 19-02-2024. Comparing the two sets of evidence, one being ocular and other digital, the Court was more bent towards the video recording since it was also confirmed to be genuine and untampered by the expert with the explanation that “there would never be a change of narrative because of the passage of time, loss of memory, personal perspective, biases or any other factor.” The Court further added that “Even watching the video points out that the frames are in sequence, and the voice is continuous, which points out that the video clip appears genuine. As such, for bail, this court considers this video recording untampered and genuine evidence.” However, the Court confined such observations for the purpose of bail and not the trial.
The Court referred to the facts and made strong comments that ” A responsibility to perform any executive function when given to an officer drawing salary from the public exchequer is nothing short of delegation by the sovereign of its powers, and such officers are duty bound to stand tall in the performance of their duties, and they can discharge them legally, honestly and efficiently, only when they are honest, skilled, and meritorious. Those who have strong moral compass do not waiver because of temptation, and they place their duties to the system over and above their vested interests. Temptation or unquenched thirst for more money, more power is a devil in disguise. One only enters a pathway to destruction by their own choice. Once such a person chooses to take the path of corruption, be it only once, they end up setting their own selves under a trap. What was once a choice later becomes a compulsion as no amount of running in this vicious hamster wheel would allow one to get out of their cage…. Those employees who are vulnerable to temptation and who do not stick to the ethical standards of living, and those who have no control over their desires are prone to falling into such entrapments and it would be better for the system if they stay away from the government jobs.”
The Court further suggested the government to keep such employees away from sensitive positions, and that any sympathies with such an employee erodes success of a democracy. The Court also reprimanded the entrapment stating that “Watching this video is an eye-opener. It portrays how these thugs make friends with government employees, influencing and manipulating them and ultimately having an upper hand in a system that is otherwise to be run by the rule of law, pointing out the collapse of ethical and moral values at almost all levels.” The Court refused to grant bail to the petitioner stating that “the petitioner’s vulnerabilities are his own failings. This court’s job is to do justice to all affected, impacted, and concerned.”
The Court further cited Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529; State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364; State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 and a catena of cases, the Court did not find the petitioner’s case suitable for grant of anticipatory bail, and thus, dismissed the same.
[Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 1583, decided on 21-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate S.S. Narula
For State: DAG Kanav Bansal
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
