Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1391 (PNJ)

Anand Singh Dangi v. State Of Haryana

2001-12-12

K.C.GUPTA

body2001
Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This is a petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by Sh. Anand Singh Dangi in a case bearing FIR No. 14 dated 10.6.2000 under Sections 420, 218, 406, 409, 418, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that FIR No. 3 dated 8.4.2000 under Sections 218, 406, 409, 418, 407, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Ambala. 92 files regarding allotment of land to the migrants were examined, out of which 23 files related to Districts Sonepat and Rohtak. 9 files of allotment of land are detailed below :- 1. Ram Saran son of Husnakarai. 2. Sawan Ram son of Takaan Ram. 3. Jiwan Dass son of Mani Ram. 4. Attar Chand son of Mohari Ram. 5. Hans Raj son of Nand Lal. 6. Nihari son of Chottu Ram. 7. Sant Lal son of Nand Lal. 8. Smt. Vira Bai. 9. Ram Gopal son of Hari Chand. 3. The aforesaid nine files were studied and it was found that the allottees and heirs of the said allotees had got the land allotted before cut was imposed and as such, no cut was imposed on these cases and further no relation was found amongst allottees, heirs and attorneys. Sh. Didar Singh, retired Assistant Registrar, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, had issued U.O. (Utilisation Order) after preparing the documents and without verifying the real heirs on the basis of the affidavits of the heirs or their attorneys. In two of the nine cases, Attar Chand son of Mohhari Ram, Ram Kumar son of Chattar Singh residents of village Madina District Rohtak and in two other cases Jai Narain son of Subo Singh were having General Power of Attorney and belonged to the village of Anand Singh Dangi, the then Revenue Minister. These files were directly called and seen by Anand Singh Dangi, the then Revenue Minister from Tehsildar (Sales), Rohtak. 4. It was further averred that out of nine, in three cases Sh. Gurcharan Lal son of Roshan Lal resident of H. No. D.C. 149, Char Chaman District Karnal, was found having general power of attorney. He was not financially sound to deal with the land. Sh. 4. It was further averred that out of nine, in three cases Sh. Gurcharan Lal son of Roshan Lal resident of H. No. D.C. 149, Char Chaman District Karnal, was found having general power of attorney. He was not financially sound to deal with the land. Sh. Rajinder Kumar, official of Rehabilitation Department, prepared fictitious documents and Didar Singh, retired A.R. issued wrong Utilisation Orders. It was further alleged that likewise, the petitioner Anand Singh Dangi misused his powers being Revenue Minister to give undue benefit to his men with the help of officials of the Department and causing loss of crores of rupees to the State of Haryana through the attorneys whereas he was duty bound to protect the interest of the State. Upon these facts, the case was registered and the petitioner had surrendered in the Court of Special Judge, Rohtak, on 4.12.2000 and now he has applied for regular bail. 5. I have heard Shri V.S. Rathore, counsel for the petitioner. Sh. Surya Kant, Advocate General, Haryana alongwith Shri D.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and carefully gone through the file. 6. It is an admitted fact that the present FIR is an off-shoot of FIR No. 3 dated 8.4.2000 registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Ambala. Subsequently, FIRs should not have been registered at other Districts but investigation should have been done in FIR No. 3 of 2000 and as such, it is the misuse of the process of law. For this contention, he placed reliance on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, 2001(3) RCR(Criminal) 436. Counsel for the petitioner contended that separate FIRs were registered in order to harass the petitioner. He further contended that the investigation is complete and the case against the petitioner is based on documentary evidence which is in possession of the State and there is no likelihood of tampering with the documentary evidence. He further contended that this Court had clubbed all the FIRs together which are to be tried by Special Judge, Ambala, having the jurisdiction. He next stated that from the allegations contained in the FIR, no offence, as alleged, was made out against the petitioner and the liability of the offences could not be fastened in any manner on the petitioner but he has been falsely implicated. He next stated that from the allegations contained in the FIR, no offence, as alleged, was made out against the petitioner and the liability of the offences could not be fastened in any manner on the petitioner but he has been falsely implicated. He further stated that the petitioner is a permanent resident of village Madina, Tehsil Maham, District Rohtak and a law graduate and owned landed property and as such, there was no likelihood of his fleeing away from the hands of justice. If the Managing Officer had not verified properly the documents, then the petitioner, Sh. Anand Singh Dangi was not to blame. No evidence has so far been collected that they had allotted the land at the behest of the petitioner. Mere allegation cannot take the place of proof. It is yet to be seen from the evidence as to how much land was allotted to particular persons and to how much land they were actually entitled to. The co-accused of the petitioner had already been released on bail. The defence counsel also contended that the files were seen by the petitioner in routine according to the standing order under Rules of Business. The larger interest of pubic or State also does not demand that the petitioner should be indefinitely kept inside the jail. It has been held in number of cases that over-riding considerations is granting bail are nature and bravity of the circumstances in which the offence in committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; the likelihood of repeating the offence; the likelihood of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; the likelihood of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as its investigation and other relevant grounds, which in view of so many valuable factors cannot be exhaustively set out. In the present case, these considerations are not fulfilled to keep the petitioner inside. 7. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and the question whether bail should be granted or refused, is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial and it is undisputable that bail is not to be with-held as a measure of punishment. 7. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and the question whether bail should be granted or refused, is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial and it is undisputable that bail is not to be with-held as a measure of punishment. I have considered the matter in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and am of the confirm view that bail should be allowed to the petitioner. Thus, the bail is allowed to the petitioner subject to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Rohtak.