Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lalit Mohan Sharma vs State Of Haryana on 16 December, 2023
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161916
CRM-M-56488-2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-56488-2023
Reserved on: 07.12.2023
Pronounced on: 16.12.2023
Lalit Mohan Sharma ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Jagjot Singh, Advocate for the pe oner.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
(Through video conferencing).
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta2on Sec2ons
355 16.10.2022 Sadar Ballabhgarh, 409, 120-B IPC and 13 of
Haryana Preven on of Corrup on Act,
1988
1. The pe oner apprehending the arrest in the FIR cap oned above, has come up before this Court under Sec on 438 Cr.P.C seeking an cipatory bail.
2. The pe oner's first ground is that one FIR was already registered regarding the same transac on i.e. FIR No. 51 dated 02.02.2022 under Sec ons 204, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC in Police Sta on Sadar Ballabhgarh, Haryana.
Now, police registered present FIR for offences under Sec ons 409, 120-B IPC and Sec on 13 of Preven on of Corrup on Act. The pe oner's next ground is that the sentence prescribed under Sec on 13 of PC Act is less than the maximum sentence prescribed under Sec on 409 IPC and once he was granted bail in the previous FIR involving the same incident, there is no reason to deny bail to him.
3. Vide order dated 14.11.2023, this Court had granted interim bail to the pe oner which is con nuing ll date.
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2023 02:31:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161916 CRM-M-56488-2023 2
4. The facts are being taken from paragraphs No. 5 to 7 of the reply dated 05.12.2023 filed by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows:
"5. That the present FIR No.355 dated 16.10.2022 U/s 409, 120B 1PC & 13 of Preven#on of Corrup#on Act, 1988 was registered in Police Sta#on, Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad for embezzlement of Rs. 20.75 crores against the pe##oner and co-accused, while the earlier FIR No. 51 dated 02.02.2022 under sec#on 406, 409,420,467,468,471, 204,120B, IPC was registered in Police Sta#on, Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad for embezzlement of Rs.1,01,63,896/- against accused Braham Pal, Joginder, Rajbir JE, M/S Farhan, M/S S.K.Enterprises, and M/S Raghav B.S. It is per#nent to men#on here that Pe##oner and other co- accused Pooja Sharma BDPO and JE who has prepared the MB have not been arrayed as accused and some more firms are not arrayed as accused in Case FIR No. 51 dated 02.02.2022 whereas all the above have been arrayed as accused in case FIR No. 355 dated 16.10.2022 even though their involvement was very much clear, which shows that in depth inves#ga#on has not been done by local police. The records pertaining to the development works (MB) has also not been provided to the Inves#ga#ng Agency so far by the BDPO office.
6. That the complainant also alleged that The Design Code (Firm name) owned by the real nephew of Joginder Secretary, Rasik Bihari and Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. company was owned by Lalit Mohan Sharma (Pe##oner), who is the real brother of co- accused Pooja Sharma BDPO. M/s S.K. Enterprise, Farhan Enterprises, Sai Trading company were owned by Arshad Khan and his brother Sahir Khan. A.K. Enterprises was owned by Afsana Khan who is the wife of Arshad Khan M/s Sakir Building Material Supplier is owned by Sakir Khan. The owner of Mis Heera Lal is working as a gardener. Raghav Building Material Supplier and Construc#on is owned by Hem Chand. All the aforesaid firms/companies are involved in the embezzlement of Panchayat funds. The village Panchayat Mujeri was merged in the Municipal Corpora#on and aAer 30.12.2020, no#ces were given to the Gram Panchayat and its func#onaries were directed not to make 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2023 02:31:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161916 CRM-M-56488-2023 3 any payment for any development work. However, the then ac#ng Sarpanch Brahampal, Joginder Village secretary, Pooja Sharma Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Tigaon in connivance of each other made of 20.44 crores, which clearly reveals that they have commiDed manipula#on in Panchayat records and further reported that Sarpanch, village Panchayat Mujeri has misplaced the records. Therefore, on the aforesaid complaint, a case FIR No. 355 dated 16.10.20022 U/s 409,420B IPC &13 the Preven#on of Corrup#on Act 1988 was registered in Police Sta#on Sadar Ballabgarh and inves#ga#on was conducted by the local police. However, as per the direc#on conveyed by Director General of Police, Haryana, Panchkula vide Memo no. 888-91/Spl. Cell-2 PHQ, Panchkula dated 20.01.2023, the inves#ga#on of this case has been transferred to State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana now An# Corrup#on Bureau, Faridabad. From the above said version, it is very much clear that the accused/Pe##oner is directly involved in the misappropria#on of the Panchayat funds and obtained undue advantage and caused loss to the government exchequer.
7. That it is also to men#on here that Complainant Satbir Singh Kapasia send a complaint which was received in the office of the Director General, State Vigilance Bureau Haryana from Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana Vigilance Department vide memo no 61/27/2021-2Vig-11 dated 30.03.2022 and thereaAer an enquiry no. 4/22 Faridabad was registered and received in the office of the Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Faridabad for taking further necessary ac#on. During the course of enquiry, it has come to the no#ce of the Enquiry Officer that on the same allega#ons a FIR No. 355 has been registered in Police Sta#on Sadar Ballabgarh and due to this, the Enquiry Officer sent recommenda#ons to close the said enquiry and the cases which have already been registered in local police to be transferred in State Vigilance Bureau, Faridabad. The Government of Haryana accepted the proposal and thereaAer both the cases were transferred to the Inves#ga#ng Agency i.e. SVB, Faridabad.
3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2023 02:31:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161916 CRM-M-56488-2023 4
5. The pe oner's counsel submits that as per Haryana Panchaya Raj Act, 1994, it is the Gram Panchayat, who has power to purchase materials and a Panchayat Financial CommiBee is cons tuted comprising of J.E., SDO, Sarpanch and Gram Sachiv, who seek quota ons from registered contractors and the materials are purchased from the contractor with lowest price. In the en re process, Block Development & Panchayat Officer (BDPO) of the concerned block has no role of allotment to anyone. Based on para 4, the pe oner's counsel submits that the pe oner is a proprietor of a firm, namely, Rasik Bihari Infratect and Construc on India Private Limited. The Panchayat had ini ated development works for fixing dholpur stones on walls of Va ka and Toilets and the quota ons were sought from three contractors and since the pe oner had given the lowest rates, as such, the Panchayat decided to purchase the same from him. Simply because the pe oner's sister was BDPO, she had no role in the said process as has been explained above. The pe oner explicitly states that he had supplied the materials with quality and quan ty as per the quota ons and as per the bills (Annexure P-2) the materials worth Rs.1,12,67,320/- supplied to the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat had made payment of Rs.1.08 crore against such supply.
6. The pe oner has also referred to the photographs of the construc on ac vity going on in the Panchayat where dholpur stones are being affixed on the walls.
7. The State has opposed the bail on the grounds men oned in the reply.
8. I have heard counsel for the par es and gone through the record.
9. The pe oner on affidavit states in paragraph 6 of the bail pe on that the work was done and the materials worth Rs.1,12,67,320/- were supplied and has annexed bills to the said effect vide Annexure P-2. In response to this paragraph, the prosecu on's case is that neither the pe oner nor the Gram Panchayat has provided the record, as such, it cannot be ascertained whether materials have been supplied or not. In addi on to this, in paragraph 7 of the bail pe on, the pe oner admits that the Gram Panchayat had made a payment to the pe oner of Rs.1,08,00,000/- to him and 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2023 02:31:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161916 CRM-M-56488-2023 5 against the bills which were raised. In response to paragraph 7 of the pe on, no specific reply was filed by the State.
10. The prosecu on's case is based on the fact that the pe oner is real brother of Pooja Sharma, who was Block Development & Panchayat Officer. It is stated that being the real brother of Pooja Sharma, he was wrongly awarded contract.
Regarding the allega on that the payment was made without approval, the pe oner was a supplier and had nothing to do with it, as such, his case is differently placed than that of Pooja Sharma, etc. who were involved in the decision making for purchase and for payment.
11. Thus in the en rety of facts and circumstances explicitly the pe oner's specific stand by placing on record the bills and photographs of the spot which reflects that work is going on, as such, it is not a case for custodial interroga on or pre-trial incarcera on.
12. Given above, the present pe on is allowed and interim order dated 14.11.2023 is made absolute subject to the condi on that the pe oner join inves ga on as and when called upon to do so and to hand over the original bills to the inves gator. In case, he fails to do so, on this ground alone, it shall be permissible for the State to file an applica on for cancella on of bail. All pending miscellaneous applica ons, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
16.12.2023
Jyo -II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161916
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2023 02:31:04 :::