ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 19 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Vide order dated 14.11.2023, this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner which is continuing till date.

4. Facts of the case are being extracted from reply dated 28.11.2023 filed by concerned DySP which reads as under:-

“3. That the brief facts of the case are that a fire incident took place at Godown of PUNSUP district Patiala at village Paharpur under the jurisdiction of Nabha Centre (district Patiala) in the intervening night of 26/27-03-2015. Accordingly, the spot was inspected by the then District Manager, PUNSUP on 27-03-2015 and submitted his report. Copy of the report is attached herewith as Annexure R-1. The District Manager, PUNSUP after checking the spot, the following facts were observed:-

(i) No clear cut fact come to light regarding out break of fire. So far the question of out break of fire due to short circuit, it is appropriate to mention here that no electric wire is passing over head Chakka (heap of wheat). Plinth is situated at distance from boundary wall.

(ii) | have recorded the statements of Chowkidars, there is difference in the statement of each other with regard to arrival of the Incharge Ranjit Singh, Chowkidar has disclosed that Incharge has arrived in Godown at 02:00 A.M., whereas, others have disclosed that the Incharge has come in the morning.

ii) Incharge has alleged that his phone was on silent, so he could not hear the phone of Chowkidar. This fact is also suspected.

(iv) None of chowkidar tried to call fire brigade at the spot, whereas. this is their primary duty.

(v) One Chowkidar Kesar Singh (statement attached), who was on morning duty has alleged that all the Chakka's affected by the fire were incomplete. This fact does not tally with the statement of Incharge and statement of other Chowkidars.

(vi) One Chakka was not affected with fire, which is situated in between other Chaka's which were affected with the fire.

From the facts mentioned above, | came to the conclusion that the entire occurrence is suspected and seems to be self made and in view of the above, FIR is liable to be registered against the Incharge and Chowkidars posted on duty and administrative action is liable to be taken against them. So, that all facts can come to light.

. That in view of above preliminary enquiry, the enquiry in the matter was conducted by PUNSUP Department and found that there is huge shortage in wheat stock in the godown under the supervision of the petitioner and his co-accused Iqbal Singh. After conducting the enquiry in the matter, Managing Director, PUNSUP, Chandigarh vide letter No. JM _ (Bhandar)/ Enquiry/2015/21450 dated 15-08-2015 referred the matter to the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh to take necessary action against the petitioner and others. Similarly, Chief Vigilance Officer, PUNSUP, Head Office, Chandigarh vide letter No. V.0. (88)/2015/34099 dated 25-12-2015 referred the matter to Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh to take necessary action against the petitioner.”

5. | have heard counsel for the parties.

6. As per para no.7 of the reply dated 28.11.2023, it came in the investigation that the petitioner was posted as Security Guard at the place where the fire took place. The police recorded the statement of one Chowkidar namely Shankar Yadav under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-

“On the date of occurrence, he was present on duty at MM Open Plinth. The petitioner-Didar Singh, Security Guard, called Sonu, Deepak and one more person through phone, who reached there within 5-7 minutes. Iqbal Singh (the petitioner) told him that let them do their work and asked him to reach at the Gate. But he did not return at the gate, whereas, Sonu, Deepak, Didar Singh and one more person continued putting plinths on fire in his presence. He continued to put off the fire, but they restrained him from putting off the fire of plinths. Iqbal Singh came there in the morning at 6:00 A.M. He summoned the Fire Brigade and labour there and started segregating the Chakkas (Plinths). The District Manager and Gurmeet Singh came at the spot. Didar Singh took his phone. He returned back at 9:00 A.M. in the morning. When Iqbal Singh learnt about departmental enquiry by Head Office, then the Iqbal Singh threatened him (eye witness Shankar Yadav Chowkidar) on phone on 18/07/2015 and directed him to repeat earlier statement, otherwise he (Iqbal Singh) would not spare Shankar Yadav Chowkidar. He disclosed about the threat to Anant Kumar Sharma, District Incharge PUNSUP, Patiala. Attendance register was in possession of Iqbal Singh. There is no electricity wire passing over head the plinths nor there is any electricity line near to the plinths. Light has been provided to the plinths from a distance, so there was no apprehension of any electricity short circuit.”

7. . In para no.8 of the reply, it came in the investigation that no electric line was passing over the plinths and there was no break down in the electricity connection or electric line in the intervening night of 26/27.03.2015. Further none of the employee of PUNSUP has informed about out break of fire, as such, the fire did not occur because of the electricity as was projected by the accused.

8. It will be pertinent to refer to para no.10 of the reply which reads as follows:-

“10. That as per special Physical Verification conducted by the PUNSUP on 14-05-2015 to 18-05-2015 the stock was as under:-

Sr. No.	Crop	Name of godown	Number of bags stored/weight	Number of bags available at the spot
1	Wheat for the year 2014-15	Thuhi Food Open Complex	133700 bags/66850-00	129130 bags/ shortage 4570 bags
2	-do-	MM Open Plinth-I Paharpur	136400 bags/68200.00	118980 bags/shortage 17420 bags
3	-do-	MM Open Plinth-II Paharpur	51651 bags/25825-50	45007 bags/shortage 6644
Total loss				28634 bags

9. It will be pertinent to mention here that before fire, the stock of the wheat as per the registers was exactly the same, however after the fire there was massive shortage. Total 28634 bags were found short. It is clear that even if the fire had taken place, still there would be evidence of burnt bags.

10. The role of the petitioner as mentioned in para no.11 of the reply reads as follows:-

“11. That it is pertinent to mention here that Didar Singh, Security Guard above noted is none else but real nephew of the Incharge Iqbal Singh, who was holding the charge at that time. To cover up loss caused/misappropriation of above noted 28634 bags, Iqbal Singh himself put the plinth MM-II himself on fire through his nephew Didar Singh Security Guard and above noted associates. As per assessment of loss made by PUNSUP is of Rs.2,76,73,043/- (Rupees Two Crore, seventy six lakh, seventy three thousand forty three). Apart from material i.e. Bardana loss of Rs.1,67,946/- was also caused by the Iqbal Singh the State Government in connivance with his nephew -Didar Singh.”

11. Given the statement of Chowkidar Shankar Yadav under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which he had explicitly named the petitioner, who as per him, was putting on fire along with co-accused, whereas when the said Chowkidar tried to put off the fire, they restrained him to do so. After that, they even threatened him telephonically on 18.07.2015 and told him to stand to his earlier statement, otherwise Iqbal Singh would not spare him. The said Iqbal Singh had disclosed about the threat to District Incharge Patiala.

12. Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is required to find involvement of other accused. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner.

13. Counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused Iqbal Singh was granted bail, however, evidence against the petitioner is of eye witness and in the nature of 164 Cr.P.C. statement which stands on higher footing under Section 154 or 161 Cr.P.C. There is nothing to doubt the veracity or credibility of the Chowkidar who had seen the petitioner and his co-accused putting the wheat/plinth on fire wherein the said Chowkidar had explicitly named the petitioner- Didar Singh, security guard, Sonu, Deepak and one more person. He explicitly named Sonu, Deepak, petitioner and one person as the people who were putting fire and Iqbal Singh was also mentioned amongst those. He was not attributed anything and he only came there in the morning at 6 A.M. as such a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted bail to him on different grounds. Petitioner cannot claim parity with co-accused.

14. In Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529, Supreme Court holds,

[16]. ... We have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.

15. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, [LQ/SC/1987/328] Supreme Court holds,

[5]. ....The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest....."

16. In State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, [LQ/SC/1997/1203] Supreme Court holds,

[6]. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.

17. InJai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, [LQ/SC/2012/281] Supreme Court holds,

[19]. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. [see D.K. Ganesh Babu v. PT. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434, [LQ/SC/2007/236] State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SCC 213 [LQ/SC/2007/1236] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305] [LQ/SC/2008/2031] .

18. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, [LQ/SC/2013/568] Supreme Court holds,

[34]. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need 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.

[35]. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.

19. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 9 SCC 24, [LQ/SC/2019/1387] Supreme Court holds,

[70]. We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973 is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

20. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani, Cr.A 1148 of 2023, dated 17-04- 2023, Supreme Court, in an FIR registered under sections under Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holds,

[24]. The time-tested principles are that no straitjacket formula can be applied for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court must draw a delicate balance between liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the need for a fair and free investigation, which must be taken to its logical conclusion. Arrest has devastating and irreversible social stigma, humiliation, insult, mental pain and other fearful consequences. Regardless thereto, when the Court, on consideration of material information gathered by the Investigating Agency, is prima facie satisfied that there is something more than a mere needle of suspicion against the accused, it cannot jeopardise the investigation, more so when the allegations are grave in nature.

[31]. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, “Corruption is a tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority.” Hence, the need to be extra conscious.

21. In the background of the allegations and the light of the judicial precedents mentioned above in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner fails to make a case for anticipatory bail.

22. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to these comments.

23. Petition dismissed. Interim order dated 14.11.2023 stands vacated. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.