'Misused Public Office': Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail To Municipal Officials In ₹12 Crore Fake Work Orders Scam

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to two officials of the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, observing that allegations of large-scale corruption, forgery of public records and misappropriation of public funds demand a cautious approach at the pre-arrest stage.Justice Sumeet Goel said,"The allegations against the petitioners pertain to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which by their very nature are serious and grave. Corruption by public servant is not merely an offence against an individual but constitutes and offence against the society at large eroding public confidence in the administration."Thus, the Courts are, required to exercise a greater degree of caution while considering the grant of anticipatory bail in such cases. From the perusal of the record, it emerges that the allegations in the present FIR pertain to a serious economic offence involving abuse of official position by public servants, forgery of public records, criminal conspiracy, and misappropriation of public funds exceeding Rs. 12 crore, the Court added.Erodes Public Confidence In Governmental InstitutionThe Court said such offences strike at the very root of public administration and erode public confidence in governmental institutions. The settled position of law is that economic offences and corruption cases are to be viewed with greater circumspection while considering pre-arrest bail. The petitioners were holding a responsible public office at the relevant time and were entrusted with powers which had a direct bearing on the decision making process in question, it added.Pointing that allegations disclose misuse of official position and abuse of authority for extending undue benefit, the Court said that at this stage, the material collected during investigation cannot be brushed aside as vague or baseless. The Court rejected the argument that the entire case rests on documentary evidence and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is unnecessary is also without merit."In the considered opinion of this Court in cases involving forgery, manipulation of official records, electronic data, audit processes and conspiracy among multiple accused, the custodial interrogation often becomes indispensable to ascertain the knowledge and intent of the accused and trace the money trail," the judge said.The petitioners had approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail, in connection with FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Faridabad. The FIR alleges offences under provisions of the IPC, including criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating and criminal breach of trust, along with Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.The FIR stems from the investigation of an earlier corruption case relating to the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. During investigation, it allegedly emerged that 13 fake work orders concerning the laying of interlocking tiles were fraudulently prepared in 2018 in the name of a contractor. The original estimates of approximately ₹72.75 lakh were allegedly inflated to over ₹12.18 crore within a short span, without issuance of any official work orders or execution of work.According to the prosecution, forged documents, fake dispatch numbers and manipulated records were used to process and clear payments, causing a wrongful loss of over ₹12 crore to the public exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to the contractor, with the active involvement of municipal officials, including the present petitioners.Rejecting the plea for anticipatory bail, the Court underscored that economic offences and corruption cases must be viewed with greater circumspection. It noted that the petitioners held responsible public positions and were entrusted with duties having a direct bearing on financial decision-making.The Court further held that the plea of multiple FIRs and delay in registration could not be conclusively examined at this stage. It accepted the prosecution's stand that the impugned FIR related to a distinct set of forged work orders discovered during further investigation and that corruption offences often surface after audits and scrutiny of records.Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the specific role assigned, the stage of investigation as also the necessity of custodial interrogation for verification of facts, the bench rejected the plea.Mr. Gautam Dutt, Senior Advocate with Ms. Radhika Mehta, Advocate andMs. Sukhsharan Sra, Advocate and Mr. Amtaj Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.Ms. Mahima Yashpal, Senior DAG Haryana.Title: Vishal Kaushik and another v. State of HaryanaClick here to read order

'Misused Public Office': Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail To Municipal Officials In ₹12 Crore Fake Work Orders Scam

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags