Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 11 (HP)

NARENDRA AWASTHI v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2014-01-03

KULDIP SINGH

body2014
JUDGEMENT KULDIP SINGH, J. 1. THIS is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 14 of 2013 dated 3.10.2013 registered at Police Station, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 2. IT has been stated that the petitioner remained posted as Principal, Government College, Dharamshala from 24.7.2008 to 2.3.2010. There was a proposal to transfer land alongwith residential building to the Department of Sports, Government of Himachal. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes Pradesh prior to posting of petitioner as Principal in Government College, Dharamshala. The Dharamshala Cricket Stadium was constructed on part of the said land and other land. The petitioner has no role in transferring and demolishing the structure standing on the said land. The land over which residential structure of the College was standing was transferred by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra to the Department of Sports and mutation to this effect was also attested on 19.11.2008. The building constructed on the said land was neither demolished by the petitioner nor by anyone under his order. The petitioner never put the building material on auction. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It has been submitted that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation, no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. He is ready to furnish the bail bonds. It has been submitted that other accused have been released on bail by the Courts. The status report has been filed and the bail application has been opposed. It has been stated in the status report that on 14.3.2008 the then Deputy Commissioner called a meeting in which officiating Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dharamshala, Executive Engineer, PWD, Assistant Engineer, PWD, Principal, Govt. College, Dharamshala and Sanjay Sharma for Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association participated. In the meeting, a resolution was passed that Type -IV accommodation which is in possession of Education Department and opposite to Cricket Stadium is in dilapidated condition and is a danger to the Cricket Stadium. It has been stated that the land comprised in Khasra Nos.3673/3547/3335 measuring 720 sq. College, Dharamshala and Sanjay Sharma for Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association participated. In the meeting, a resolution was passed that Type -IV accommodation which is in possession of Education Department and opposite to Cricket Stadium is in dilapidated condition and is a danger to the Cricket Stadium. It has been stated that the land comprised in Khasra Nos.3673/3547/3335 measuring 720 sq. meters was transferred from Education Department to Sports Department vide Deputy Commissioner, Kangra order dated 20.9.2008 and the mutation was attested on 19.11.2008, but the physical possession of said land remained with the Education Department. There was two storeyed building on the aforesaid land measuring 720 sq.meters. There was no lease of this land in favour of Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association. According to the officials of Sports Department, the possession of the said land was not given to them, college teachers were occupying the residences in the building constructed over the said land. 3. IN 2009, Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association demolished the structure on aforesaid 720 sq.meters land and took its possession. At the time of demolition of building, the petitioner visited the spot, he asked the bulldozer driver why the building was being demolished, driver told that the building was being demolished as per the order of the higher authorities. The allegation against the petitioner is that he did not bring this fact to the notice of higher authorities of Education Department nor he is disclosing who demolished the structure. He is also not disclosing, who has taken away the building material. It has been stated that the petitioner is further to be interrogated and, therefore, prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Learned Additional Advocate General on instructions received from Inspector, Yashpal present in the Court, has stated that till now there are only six accused in the aforesaid FIR including the petitioner. The other accused namely Mahinder Chand Katoch, Devi Chand Chauhan, Sanjay Sharma, Lalit Mohan Sharma have already been released on bail by Courts. The demolition of structure according to the investigating agency took place somewhere in the year 2009, the meetings concerning the land over which structure was standing were held under the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra. According to the investigating agency, the said Deputy Commissioner is not an accused till now. The demolition of structure according to the investigating agency took place somewhere in the year 2009, the meetings concerning the land over which structure was standing were held under the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra. According to the investigating agency, the said Deputy Commissioner is not an accused till now. In the status report itself, it has been stated that the petitioner visited the spot at the time of demolition of the structure and asked the driver of the bulldozer under whose direction he was demolishing the structure. On the date of demolition of the building, even as per the investigating agency, the land in question was mutated in the name of Sports Department. The petitioner is not an employee of Sports Department, he is an employee of Education Department. The earlier Principal, L.N.Sharma and other accused excluding petitioner have already been granted bails by the Courts. The petitioner was granted interim bail on 20.11.2013. He has joined the investigation. The petitioner is presently serving in the H.P. University. There is no likelihood of his jumping bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 5. IN view of above, the petition is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No. 14 of 2013 dated 3.10.2013 registered at Police Station, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, he be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/ - with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 6. THE observations made in this order are for disposal of this petition only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.