Petitioners in Multi-Crore Fraud Case Involving Municipal Corporation Faridabad Face Custodial Interrogation
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Vishal Kaushik and another petitioner involved in a high-profile corruption case. The case revolves around fraudulent activities linked to the Municipal Corporation Faridabad, involving fake work orders and misappropriation of funds exceeding Rs. 7.63 crores.
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, following an FIR registered under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code. The allegations pertain to the fraudulent preparation of work orders and illegal release of payments for unexecuted works, causing substantial loss to the government exchequer.
The court highlighted the grave nature of the offences, emphasizing that corruption by public servants undermines public confidence in government institutions. Justice Goel noted that anticipatory bail in such cases could impede fair investigation, especially when custodial interrogation is crucial for tracing the money trail and uncovering the conspiracy.
The petitioners, who held positions in the Accounts Branch of the Municipal Corporation, argued that they were falsely implicated and had no direct involvement in the issuance of work orders or the execution of works. However, the court found that the allegations against them were serious, involving a well-planned conspiracy and forgery of public records.
Referring to judgments from the Supreme Court, the court underscored the need for caution in granting anticipatory bail in corruption cases, where the presumption of innocence is not sufficient to justify such relief. The court observed that the investigation is at a critical stage and granting bail could hinder efforts to gather evidence and identify other beneficiaries.
The ruling is a reminder of the judiciary's role in balancing individual rights with societal interests, especially in cases involving public corruption. The denial of bail ensures that the investigation can proceed without obstruction, reflecting the court's commitment to upholding justice and public accountability.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail in corruption cases involving public servants and economic offences is not to be granted as a matter of course, especially when custodial interrogation is deemed necessary for effective investigation.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 7, 2, 13(1)(a), 13(2), Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 471, 468, 467, 420, 409, 406, 218, 201, 167, 166, 120-B
Vishal Kaushik v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2838214
