Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To Ex-Punjab DGP Sumedh Singh Saini In Corruption Case

The Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan noted that since he is having Z-plus protection and remains in a security cover, there is no chance of his absconding and thus, granted him interim pre-arrest bail subject to his joining investigation within one week.

The matter in brief

Saini moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking a grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 109 and 120-B IPC.

It was alleged that he acquired a house in a fraudulent deal with fake documents and questionable financial transactions.

It was contended that there are suspicious transactions made by the petitioner and the agreement to sell (of a house in Chandigarh) was doubtful as the agreement of the property worth Rs.10,25,00,000/- was made a plain paper.

It was also argued that to ensure that no trail is left of the transactions, no TDS (tax deducted at source) was deducted by the petitioner while paying monthly rent.

This suspicion was also expressed that the petitioner was using his black money to plough it back as white money

Appearing for him, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that he is a victim of political vendetta and is being targeted by getting involved in one after another FIR and that this is the fourth FIR against him.

It was also argued that all the transactions pointed out in the vigilance inquiry or in the FIR are banking transactions and that he has explained the source of finances which are also through banking channels.

Court's observations

The Court noted that the contention raised by the State Government with regard to the genuineness of the agreement to sell the house and that there was a violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not deducting TDS while making payment of monthly rent, would be tested at the time of trial.

The Court also noted that the veracity of the explanation of the petitioner for making advance payment of security before the date of agreement to sell would be tested in the trial.

Thus, the Court opined that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required and directed to join the investigation as and when called for.

The matter has now been posted for further hearing on October 7, 2021.

Case title - Sumedh Singh Saini v. State of Punjab

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order