Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjeet Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114847
CRM-M-16398-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-16398-2024
Reserved on: 08.08.2024
Pronounced on: 30.08.2024
Amarjeet Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Anurag Chopra, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
4 08.03.2024 Vigilance Bureau, 13(1) (a) r/w 13(2) of PC
Flying Squad-1, (Amendment) Act, 2018 and
Punjab at Mohali 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,
120-B IPC
1. The petitioners apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above have come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In note 3 of the index of the bail petition, the accused declares that they have no criminal antecedents.
3. Facts of the case are being extracted from short reply dated 08.04.2024 filed by concerned DySP which reads as follows:-
"3. That the matter relates with allotment of high value industrial plots of PSIEC (Punjab Small Industry & Export Corporation) on lower rates than the actual market value (prevailing fixed rates for the given time) by officials/employees of PSIEC in connivance with the property dealers, in a wrongful manner for illegal gratification, in the name of their relatives/friends/acquaintances on fictitious addresses by way of failing the persons having requisite knowledge and eligible for allotment of said plots, in interview and delaying possession of allotted plots for years to come on the pretext of various impediments in delivering vacant possession such as overhanging electrical wires, un-removed left over construction material and thereafter allotting the said plots to new persons on old rates by 1 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 03-09-2024 23:16:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114847 CRM-M-16398-2024 way of changing the date of allotment of said plots based on ante- dated partnership deed executed between the old fictitious allottees and the new comers for the determined share amongst them and thereafter transferring the 100% ownership in the name of such new shareholders in the partnership deed and in this manner causing wrongful financial loss to the tune of crores of rupees to the State Exchequer.
4. That during the course of vigilance enquiry No. 3 that was initiated on 04.04.2018, it was found that co-accused Surinder Pal Singh, the then Chief General Manager (Estate), PSIEC by misusing his official position based on his noting has got issued guidelines on 30.07.2003 from Arun Goyal, the then Managing Director PSIEC for permitting change of plot allotment date of plots wherein the possession has not been delivered for want of basic facilities. The said guidelines were got passed from board of directors on 08.02.2005. However, neither such guidelines were got notified from State Government nor any circular was issued to that effect. Based on said unapproved guidelines hundreds of plots were issued with change of allotment date, for illegal gratification/unjust gain. In the said manner, the period elapsed between the initial date of allotment and the subsequently changed date of allotment was treated as zero period for waiving off the applicable penal interest on the allottees. Similarly, plots were allotted on the rates as applicable at the time of initial allotment and not the revised rates applicable at the time of changed date of plot allotment. Thus, huge financial loss was caused to the State Exchequer, in the above said manner.
5. That furthermore, during inquiry co-accused Jaswinder Singh Randhawa, the then General Manager (Personnel), PSIEC was found to have got made fake allotment of plots in the name of his relatives/friends/acquaintances namely wife Gurpreet Kaur (wife), Binay Partap Singh (cousin), Parminder Kaur (wife of his personal acquaintance Shamsher Singh), Kewal Singh, Sukhraj Singh, Damanpreet Singh son of Avtar Singh, Sukhpal Singh Sandhu, Ramanpreet Singh, Jasmeet Singh, Gurmail Singh and his daughter Gagandeep Kaur and other unknown persons. Similarly, the co- accused Surinder Pal Singh, the then Chief General Manager (Estate), PSIEC who was responsible for interviewing the potential allottees for industrial plots of PSIEC, in connivance with other co- accused persons misused his official position for change of allotment and possession of industrial plots of PSIEC and helped co- accused Jaswinder Singh Randhawa in allotment of said industrial plots. Furthermore, the co-accused Savtej Singh, SDE, PSIEC to have got allotted industrial plot of PSIEC by preparing forged documents of his relative Gurtej Singh and getting transferred the requisite amount in the account of PSIEC from the bank account of his son Manroop Singh and Amandeep Singh. Besides, the other officials of PSIEC namely Amarjit Singh Kahlon (Estate Officer), Vijay Gupta (Sr. Assistant), Darshan Garg (Consultant) acting in connivance with above named co-accused persons in fake allotment of aforesaid industrial plots of PSIEC and 2 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 03-09-2024 23:16:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114847 CRM-M-16398-2024 misplacing the files of some plots from the office of PSIEC, misused their official position in connivance with private persons, waving penal interest and extension fee in violation of applicable rules to the tune of Rs. 8,72,71,669/- and thereafter, having sold the said plots on market rates through private property dealers and in this manner having caused huge financial loss to the tune of crores of rupees to the State Exchequer."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
5. All the three petitioners were involved in the allotment process. There is an ample evidence of their connectivity with Jaswinder Singh Randhawa who has been arrested. The parameters of anticipatory bail are different from regular bail. There is no prior approval and the sanction is not in terms of Section 17-A, however State counsel submits that as per statutory Amendment Act they have taken requisite approvals and they want to arrest the petitioners and the Investigation is not violative of Section 17-A. Furthermore, there is ample evidence of petitioners' involvement as such the preliminary objection will not come in the way. An analysis of the above arguments would lead to the outcome that the objection taken is inconsequential for deciding the anticipatory bail petition for the reason that there is sufficient evidence of involvement of the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that they are senior citizens and retired employees. State counsel submits that they have retired, because of their influence the matters were kept buried and no action was taken. Now the investigation is fed up and crime would never die. An analysis would reveal that simply because a person has retired would not confer a right for anticipatory bail. Furthermore petitioners are simply senior citizens but not above 75 or 80 years which would entitle them for some concession of bail on the grounds of old age. Thus, on this ground the petitioners are not entitled to bail. Petitioners next ground is that they had joined inquiry. Simply because they were not initially detained is not a ground for anticipatory bail. Petitioners next ground is that they have all permanent abode and suffered from various health ailments. There is no statutory provision which would entitle the petitioners to anticipatory bail merely on the ground that they have permanent abode, however the offences are serious.
6. State has opposed the bail and has referred to following portions of the reply which reads as follows:-
"7. That during the course of investigation, the accused Surinder Pal Singh and Jaswinder Singh Randhawa were arrested in the present matter on 09.03.2024 and thereafter produced before the Ld. Illaqa Magistrate on the same day. The Ld. Illaga Magistrate against the request made on 09.03.2024 has granted four days police remand of the said accused persons and thereafter, on 13.03.2024 has granted further 3 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 03-09-2024 23:16:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114847 CRM-M-16398-2024 police remand of said accused persons till 16.03.2024, which was further extended till 19.03.2024 on 16.03.2024.
8. That during the course of investigation, it was revealed from the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the accused Jaswinder Singh Randhawa has used address of owner of House No. 3420, Sector 27D, Chandigarh for allotment of plot no. 426 Industrial Focal Point, Amritsar in the name of his nephew Binay Partap Singh (son of his cousin) without his permission and the said owner does not know Binay Partap Singh. Similarly, accused Jaswinder Singh Randhawa has got prepared antedated partnership in the name of Amandeep Kohri and Damanpreet Singh, from whom she has purchased plot no. E-261, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII-B, Mohali, without her information for getting effected such transfer. Damanpreet Singh is son of property dealer Avtar Singh, who is close acquaintance of accused Jaswinder Singh Randhawa.
9. That furthermore, it was also revealed that accused Surinder Pal Singh had joined PSIEC in the year 1985 as Manager and thereafter, in the year 1993 as Deputy General Manager. From said period until 2021, he has remained posted with Estate Branch, PSIEC that deals with allotment of Industrial Plots.
14.That similarly accused Vijay Gupta has remained posted as Sr. assistant with PSIEC (Estate Wing) and he has been responsible for preparing accounts of plot alottees in the area of Focal point SAS Nagar (Mohali) and putting up files for allotment of plots/change of date of alottement of plots/transfer of plots. In the present matter, he in connivance with other accused persons has delayed forwarding of account information of said alottees further to higher officials, due to which the said allottees could not be issued recovery notices on time and the alottement made to them illegally could not be cancelled for non-payment of dues. Similarly, he has also given wrongful notings on plot files for change of date of alottement of plots/transfer of plots, for assisting the other accused persons in retaining control over illegally allotted plots.
It has come in his statement recorded during inquiry that due to change of allotment date in plot no. E-261 Phase-VIII B, Focal Point, Mohali, Plot No. C-210, Phase-VIII B, Focal Point, Mohali, Plot No. D- 247, Phase-VIII B, Focal Point, Mohali, there has resulted a loss of Rs. 2, 56, 10,000/- to PSIEC. Similarly, due to change of allotment date in plot no. E-260, Phase-VIII B, Focal Point, Mohali, Plot No. C-211, Phase-VIII B, Focal Point, Mohali, Plot No. D-250, Phase-VIII A, Focal Point, Mohali, Plot No. E-260A, Phase-VIII B, Focal Point, Mohali, Plot No. C-209, Phase-VIII B, Focal Point, Mohali, Plot No. E- 330P, Phase-Vill A, Focal Point, Mohall, has resulted in loss of Rs. 3, 86, 50,000/- to PSIEC. Besides, due to non charging of penal interest and extension fee against plot nos. C-177P, Phase-VIII B, Focal Point, Mohali, Plot No. D-206, Phase-VIII B. Focal Point, Mohali, Plot No. E-250, Phase-VIII B. Focal Point, Mohali, Plot No. 234, Phase-IX, Focal Point, Mohali, Plot No. C-168, Phase-VIII B, Focal Point, Mohali, has resulted in loss of Rs. 2, 30, 11, 669/- to PSIEC.
44 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 03-09-2024 23:16:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114847 CRM-M-16398-2024
15. That likewise, the accused Darshan Kumar alias Darshan Garg has remained posted as Estate Officer with PSIEC during his service period till year 2011-12 and as consultant after his retirement till 2012-19. He was responsible for issuance of allotment letters of plots, forwarding files for change of date of alottement to accused Surinder Pal Singh and issue process for recovery pending dues against the plot allottees. In the present matter, he in connivance with other accused persons has issued allotment letters of plots to fictitious allottees on fake addresses and has been instrumental in waiving of penal interest applicable on pending dues by way of recommending change of plot allotment date and delaying the recovery process for lingering on the cancellation action against the plot allottees who has failed to clear their dues within prescribed period, for granting them illegal benefits."
7. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached, primafacie points towards the petitioners' involvement and does not make out a case for bail. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the petitioners; this court refrains from doing so.
8. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
9. Petition dismissed. Interim orders, if any, are recalled with immediate effect. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
30.08.2024
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
5
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 03-09-2024 23:16:14 :::