Vigilance Bureau sat on complaint for 5 years before FIR; HC terms delay ‘inexplicable, deplorable’

The Punjab Vigilance Bureau registered an FIR in a corruption case in March nearly five years after a complaint in the matter was filed —an inordinate delay the Punjab and Haryana High Court has termed “inexplicable nay deplorable”. Taking serious note of the prolonged inaction, Justice Sumeet Goel has directed the Chief Director, State Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, to file an affidavit detailing the reasons and justification for continuing with the inquiry for nearly half a decade without registering an FIR.

Justice Sumeet Goel asserted the complaint which resulted in the FIR’s registration was stated to have been furnished in July 2019. But the Vigilance Bureau, for “some cause”, chose to sit over the complaint for about five years as the FIR was registered only in March.

“The situation appears to be inexplicable, nay deplorable. Ergo; the Chief Director, State Vigilance Bureau, Punjab is directed to look into the matter and file an affidavit delineating therein the cause for and justification behind continuation of an inquiry for a period of about five years without registration of an FIR,” Justice Goel asserted.

The matter was brought to the high court’s notice after Harmeet Singh Sehgal filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR registered on March 10 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Vigilance Bureau police station.

Appearing on his behalf, senior advocate S.K. Garg Narwana with counsel RPS Jammu contended that the complaint which culminated into the FIR was given in 2019. But the Vigilance Bureau continued to sit over the same for about five years. The petitioner duly appeared before the official concerned as and when he was called upon before the FIR registration during the course of inquiry by the Bureau. He was willing to join investigation and cooperate. As such, his custodial interrogation “would only result in ignominy.”

Issuing notice of motion, Justice Goel fixed the matter for May second week, before directing the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer and join the investigation. “In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when further called by Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall join the investigation,” the Bench concluded.

Punjab