Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1393 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Anand Singh Dangi

2001-12-12

K.C.GUPTA

body2001
Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This is a petition filed by State of Haryana against Anand Singh Dangi and four others for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 3 dated 8.4.2000 under sections 218, 406, 409, 481, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Ambala Range, Ambala and bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge vide her order dated 7.6.2001. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Sh. Anand Singh Dangi was Revenue Minister from 1991 to May/June 1996. During the period from 1.1.1996 to 21.6.1996, land measuring 1329 acres belonging to Rehabilitation Department was allotted in 172 cases to different persons. Similarly, land measuring 1405 acres and 14 marlas was allotted to 94 persons at different places during this very period. The land was allotted to the persons claiming themselves to be displaced persons from West Pakistan. It is also an undisputed fact that in each allotment case, the file was dealt with by the subordinate staff upto Tehsildar (Sales) and thereafter it was directly put up before the Revenue Minister who had returned the same with the remarks "SEEN". 3. The case of the prosecution is that the said allotments were made in a totally illegal and fraudulent manner, although verification was required to be made as per instructions of the Rehabilitation Department. 4. There is no dispute about it that the allottees were subjected to cut; prior to 22.10.1953 and it is only after the order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 841 to 1968, the scheme of cut imposed upon by the Government was set-aside, making them entitled to possess the land in equal share as they had possessed in Pakistan before partition. The order passed by the then Revenue Minister approving the scheme of the Government regarding imposition of cut was also set-aside on the ground of jurisdiction. The case registered related to 92 files regarding allotment of land to the displaced persons who had migrated to India after Indo-Pak division in the year 1947. 17 persons were arrayed as accused in the said FIR. The claimants had then sought allotment of the land which had been denied to them on account of cut. The case registered related to 92 files regarding allotment of land to the displaced persons who had migrated to India after Indo-Pak division in the year 1947. 17 persons were arrayed as accused in the said FIR. The claimants had then sought allotment of the land which had been denied to them on account of cut. The applications were processed and the allegations are that without verifying the entitlement and the identity of the claimants, orders of allotment were made and 1329 acres of land, as stated above, was allotted to different persons. A question was raised in the legislative assembly and the matter was enquired into by the Commissioner, Ambala and it was found that the allotment had been made without verifying the claims and also without any proper verification. It was also observed that it was a case of land grabbing and it involves officers of various levels including the Revenue Minister. Para Nos. 5 and 6 of the impugned order dated 7.6.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, of which cancellation is sought, read as under :- "5. The investigation state in this case is over and the challan has already been filed. 13 accused out of the total 17 accused have been released on bail. The bail application of accused A.S. Dangi was opposed by the State on the ground that his earlier bail application has been ejected. Learned PP had referred to an authoirty reported as Kanwal Kishore Jerath v. State (U.T. Chandigarh), 2000(4) RCR(Criminal) 600, but the facts of the present case are entirely different. The anticipatory bail application of accused A.S. Dangi had been dismissed and under the directions of Honble Supreme Court, petitioner A.S. Dangi had surrendered before the Court. This is the first regular bail application, which has been filed. No other application, seeking regular bail had been disposed of. Before me, no argument had been made that the petitioners would tamper with evidence or flee from justice. In non- bailable offence, the Court has to take into consideration the nature and seriousness of the offence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of presence of accused not being secured at trial, reasonable apprehensions of witnesses being tampered with and larger interest of the State. 6. In non- bailable offence, the Court has to take into consideration the nature and seriousness of the offence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of presence of accused not being secured at trial, reasonable apprehensions of witnesses being tampered with and larger interest of the State. 6. The object of bail is to secure attendance of the accused at trial and bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. In the present case, no argument has been made that the petitioners would flee from justice or would tamper with evidence or would influence the witnesses. The Court is not required to meticulously go into the evidence. The investigation has already been completed, therefore, I feel that it is a case, where bail should be granted as such, all the petitioners are allowed bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court. A request has been made that since the Courts are closing from tomorrow, they may be allowed to furnish bonds before the C.J.M., Ambala. In the circumstances, bail bonds be furnished to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Ambala. A copy of this order be placed on the files of bail application titled Jug Lal v. State and Ashok Kumar and Sham Kumar v. State. Files be consigned to records." 5. Therefore, there is no reasonable apprehension that the respondents would tamper with the evidence. There is also no reasonable apprehension that they would not join the process of law to face the sentence. The respondent Sh. A.S. Dangi is in custody for the last more than one year and the case depends upon documentary evidence which is in possession of the State, so, there is no question that the respondents would tamper with the evidence. It will be rather a futile exercise to keep them in custody. 6. It is also contended that Sh. Anand Singh Dangi has misused the process of law and he had avoided his arrest for over eight months and the interest of State demanded that his bail should be cancelled. However, the facts of the case do not show that his bail should be cancelled and he be kept in jail. 6. It is also contended that Sh. Anand Singh Dangi has misused the process of law and he had avoided his arrest for over eight months and the interest of State demanded that his bail should be cancelled. However, the facts of the case do not show that his bail should be cancelled and he be kept in jail. He had not misused the process of law but in a legal manner, he had tried to avoid his arrest but when ultimately the Apex Court directed him to surrender in the Court of Special Judge, Rohtak, then he surrendered as undertaken by him. The investigation is already complete. Nothing is to be recovered from Sh. Anand Singh Dangi or the other respondents. 7. According to the law, the allotment is to be made by Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1954 and if any person is aggrieved by the allotment, then he can file an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner under Section 22 of the said Act and further revision can be filed before Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the Act. Therefore further revision can be filed before the F.C.R. under Section 33 of the Act. Therefore, the allotments are to be made by the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer and not by the Settlement Commissioner or the Chief Settlement Commissioner. According to Rule 18 of the Rules of Business of Haryana, 1968, which has been amended by the then Revenue Minister vide his order dated 4.7.1977 confirmation of allotment of land against claims was to be put up before the Revenue Minister and this standing order was followed by all the Revenue Ministers from 1977 to 1993. Therefore, there was nothing bad in it if the file was put up before Sh. Anand Singh Dangi, the then Revenue Minister for perusal but he had not given any direction and had only written the word "SEEN". The investigation of the case is already complete and if the respondents are allowed to remain on bail, then there is no question that it will hamper the investigation. There is no reasonable apprehension that the respondents would flee from justice or will tamper with the prosecution evidence as it depends upon documentary evidence which is in possession of the State. There is also no apprehension that if allowed to remain on bail, they would commit a serious offence. There is no reasonable apprehension that the respondents would flee from justice or will tamper with the prosecution evidence as it depends upon documentary evidence which is in possession of the State. There is also no apprehension that if allowed to remain on bail, they would commit a serious offence. This has been so observed by the Delhi High Court in Anil Mahajan v. Commissioner of Customs, 2000(3) RCR(Crl.) 242. 8. It is yet to be determined from evidence that respondent, Anand Singh Dangi, has misused his position and caused loss to the State to the tune of crores of rupees. So far, there is no oral testomony of the claimants that they were not allotted land and on the other hand, the henchman of Anand Singh Dangi had grabbed the land. 9. In such circumstances, there is no justification to cancel the bail. Consequently the petition is dismissed.