Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 181 (PNJ)

R. K. Garg v. State Of Haryana

2001-02-05

S.S.NIJJAR

body2001
Judgment S. S. Nijjar, J. 1. The petitioner is one of the accused in FIR No.17, dated 30-12-1999 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B. Indian Penal Code read with Sec.13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at the Police Station. State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak. 2. The petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer with the HUDA since 1990. In the year 1995, there were heavy floods in the State of Haryana. The roads in various Districts of the State of Haryana were affected. The Haryana Government identified five Districts, namely Hissar. Panipat. Rohtak. Sirsa and Bhiwani for receiving funds for repair of the roads. According to the FIR one Krishan Dass was a Minister in Government of Haryana, who was also the in-charge of HUDA. He therefore, diverted the funds, which were meant for the five Districts only to the District of Rohtak. It is also alleged that the work which was supposed to be executed by the Municipal Corporation was got done by HUDA. A perusal of the FIR prima facie shows that the petitioner was acting on orders received from higher Authorities. 3. When the FIR was registered, the petitioner alongwith others filed anticipatory bail application in this Court. This was dismissed vide order dated 11th February.2000. Against the dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail the petitioner alongwith other co-accused filed Special Leave Petition. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition the arrest of the petitioner had been stayed subject to joining investigation. The petitioner was directed to face custodial interrogation on a number of occasions. Ultimately, the petitioner withdrew the SLP and made a statement that he shall present himself for interrogation as and when required. Consequently the petitioner appeared in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Rohtak. He was remanded to police custody for a period of three days. Thereafter, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 1st December, 2000. 4. Mr. Goel submitted that the petitioner was not the Sanctioning Authority. HUDA headed by a Chief Administrator and Administrator. The Superintending Engineer or a Chief Engineer is the Sanctioning Authority for all the works handled by the executive Engineer. The funds had been diverted on the express orders of the Government i. e. the Minister concerned. 4. Mr. Goel submitted that the petitioner was not the Sanctioning Authority. HUDA headed by a Chief Administrator and Administrator. The Superintending Engineer or a Chief Engineer is the Sanctioning Authority for all the works handled by the executive Engineer. The funds had been diverted on the express orders of the Government i. e. the Minister concerned. It is submitted that whole inquiry and the registration of the FIR factuated by malice in view of the change of the regime in Haryana. 5. Mr. Mehta has vehemently argued that the offences committed by the petitioner are of serious nature. He further submitted that if released on bail the petitioner would be in a position to tamper with the record. He placed considerable emphasis on the fact that the statement made before the Income Tax Authorities the petitioner has claimed that his wife is owner of property worth almost Rs. one crore. There is no intimation whatsoever to the Department. He gave only the list of property in 1988. He submitted that such type of persons should not be enlarged on bail. 6. I have considered the entire matter. In the present case it is not disputed that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21st December.2000. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has been suspended from service. It would not be appropriate to go into the merits of the case put up by the prosecution at this stage. It. however deserves to be noticed that the petitioner is in judicial custody. The record which may be necessary is available with the official Department. The petitioner is already under suspension. Suitable restrictions restraining the access of the petitioner to the official record are also be imposed by the Special Judge while considering the terms for grant of bail. In such circumstances. I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose will be served by further incarcerating the petitioner. 7. In view of the above bail to the satisfaction to the Special Judge, Rohtak. 8. A copy of the order be given Dasti on payment. Petition allowed.