Jammu, March-04: Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu Sanjeev Gupta today rejected the bail application of Kewal Kumar Sharma S/O Gian Chand R/O Kachrial, Palanwala, Akhnoor, District Jammu, A/P Patta Paloura, Jammu then PRO who was arrested by the Vigilance in disproportionate assets case.
According to the FIR has been registered against the petitioner after thorough verification during the course of which it was found that petitioner who is a forest guard on the pay role of government of J&K has amassed disproportionate assets of more than Rs.4.00 Crores to the known sources of his legitimate income during a period of 02 years (i.e. 2013-2014) when he was posted as a PRO with the then Deputy Chief Minister of J&K State. The assets allegedly acquired by the petitioner with illegal means includes one double storey house at Patta Paloura Jammu; one residential house constructed at Border Migrants Colony at (Paluwan) Akhnoor; one residential house constructed at ancestral village (Dhangar) Kachrial; Renovation and extension of ancestral house at village Kachrial; 17 marla land in khasra No. 1312 Patta Paloura, Jammu, besides it was also found that he has purchased luxury vehicles i.e. Rexton Rx6, SUV Mahindra 500, TATA Safari, Scorpio and 4 x 4 Thar Jeep etc and commercial vehicles one JCB, 2×2 Bus Volvo, Eicher Matador and Sonalika Tractor etc mostly benami in the name of his family members after spending about Rs.1.00 Crores and had also made several foreign tours in violation of service conduct rules involving huge expenditure. It is also alleged that so far eight bank accounts have been detected in the name of petitioner and his family members in different banks in which huge transactions amounting to Rs.3.50 to Rs.4.00 Crores were found. It is also alleged that petitioner has purchased a residential flat at Ghaziabad for an amount of Rs.75.00 Lacs out of which Rs. 70.00 Lacs have been transferred in the name of Dr.Davendre Garg from whom the flat was purchased. The amount was transferred through RTGS from the account opened by petitioner in the name of his wife Baby Koul on fake documents. It is further alleged that petitioner has deposited and withdrawn crores of rupees from his own account and the accounts of his family members and a lot of money is still unaccounted but the accused is not cooperating with the investigation who is even threatening the investigating officer besides the witnesses whose statements are yet to be recorded.
Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu after hearing Ajay Dogra Senior Prosecuting Officer for the VOJ whereas Adv AK Shan for the accused, observed that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs 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.
11. There is no denying the fact that liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the courts. Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation. The valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general has to be balanced. Liberty of a person accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case. The individual liberty is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society an individual is expected to live with dignity having respect for law and also giving due respect to other’s rights. The individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. To sum up, it is incumbent upon the court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the law and for that purpose, the court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the prosecution and comment on the same.
Court further said that Therefore, it is apparent that courts have to strike a reasonable balance between the societal interest and individual interest. When these interests are irreconcilable, societal interest must prevail. In a society governed by rule of law, there should be zero tolerance to corruption. The nature of graft cases is entirely different from other common offences and so greater care should be taken while scrutinizing such cases. The same does not mean that the general principles of law relating to bail are to be given a go bye, or a deviation but the only thing to be considered by the court is that bail in such cases should be considered with great circumspection and only when there exists reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offences, bail should be granted. It should not be done in a casual and in a routine manner. Oft repeated arguments that if the petitioner has committed an offence, he will be convicted by the trial court after the trial, besides the punishment of the crime is maximum to the extent of seven years and as such entitled for grant of bail at the very first go does not seem to be palatable/acceptable in such type of cases. Moreover, it has been high lighted by the prosecution that if the petitioner is enlarged to bail, he will influence the witnesses, since some of them are on his pay rolls and thereby investigation will suffer a set back, is also a ground for not exercising the discretion in favour of the petitioner who has also threatened the I.O of the case told verbally by him in the court and the instant case appears to be an illustration of the failure of system at the higher echelon of government whereby the petitioner who was working as PRO with the high office of Dy.Chief Minister of J&K State indulged in corrupt practices in an organized manner by throwing all cautions to wind and created assets, stated to be approximately one thousand times disproportionate to his known sources of income. It does not require wisdom of a seer to visualize that for some invisible reasons a long rope was given to the petitioner from power that may be who was allowed to make full use of it to exploit the same for ulterior motives without any accountability.
Court further said that taking note of all these aspects and in the facts and circumstances of the case without expressing any opinion on the merits I think that the social concern in the case at hand to be given priority over lifting the restriction of liberty of the petitioner at this stage. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner deserves rejection which is accordingly dismissed.
Court rejects bail of Kewal Sharma
