Delhi High Court
Ashok Malhotra vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 19 March, 2008
Author: Rekha Sharma
Bench: Rekha Sharma
ORDER Rekha Sharma, J.
Crl. M.A. Nos. 2665-66/08 Allowed subject to just exceptions.
Crl. M.A.No. 316/08
1. Vide RC No. DAI-2007-A-0025 dated July 3, 2007, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case under Sections 120B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner - Ashok Malhotra and five others. During the course of investigation, Section 467 IPC was also added and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and others under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the court of Special Judge, CBI at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. The petitioner is in custody since August 6, 2007 except for a brief period from November 6, 2007 when he was released on interim bail till November 23, 2007 on which date he was remanded back to judicial custody. He has filed petition under Sections 482/483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that his detention after the expiry of 90 days from the date of his arrest is illegal and without authority of law. Consequently, he has sought his release from his alleged illegal detention. Pending hearing and disposal of the same, he has filed present application seeking regular bail on merits. It is the application for bail which is the subject matter of this order. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the bail application are as under:
3. During the period 2000-02, under a Scheme of Delhi Development Authority, the erstwhile residents of Hudson Line jhuggi jhopri were to be resettled and each resident family was to be given a plot measuring 20.9 sq. meters in Dheerpur Phase I and Nehru Vihar.
4. It is alleged that during the period 1999-2002, petitioner Ashok Malhotra along with officers of the Delhi Development Authority, namely, Shri K.S.Verma, Shri Jeet Ram Gaur and Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma functioning as public servants in the capacity of Deputy Director, Assistant Director and Dealing Assistant respectively as well as Shri Shyam Babu, Assistant Engineer, Shri Sushil Kumar, Junior Engineer and Shri Lal Mani, Under Secretary, Delhi Vidhan Sabha entered into a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance thereof prepared forged documents in the name of fictitious persons showing them to be the erstwhile residents of Hudson Line area. As per the Scheme, the erstwhile occupants of the land in Hudson Line in order to qualify for allotment of plots were supposed to make applications to the Deputy Director, Delhi Development Authority along with their identity proofs and affidavits indicating that earlier they were in occupation of the land in Hudson Line. The officers of the DDA, on the other hand, were required to verify those documents and were also required to have personal interviews with the claimants. It is the case of the CBI that the officers of the DDA in conspiracy with the petitioner and Lal Mani gave a complete go-bye to the guidelines laid down for allotment of plots. On the contrary, acting on the forged and fabricated documents, they handed over allotment letters to Ashok Malhotra which he sold in open market resulting in wrongful gains to each one of them.
5. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that whereas the petitioner is under arrest since August 6, 2007, most of the officers of the DDA who were equally involved in forging and fabrication of documents were never arrested. Not only the DDA officers, even accused Lal Mani who as noticed above, is Under Secretary in Delhi Vidhan Sabha and who according to CBI's own case had actually forged the documents and put his thumb impression on the same was also not arrested. Therefore, it is contended that the CBI had been selective in arresting persons involved in the racket even though all of them were acting in connivance with each other and thus, were similarly placed.
6. It is not disputed by learned Counsel appearing for CBI that other accused persons who have been similarly booked and are facing trial like the petitioner have not been arrested. It is stated that they were not arrested because they had co-operated in the investigation whereas the presence of the petitioner had to be secured by getting non-bailable warrants issued against him. This fact is disputed by learned Senior Counsel Shri Dinesh Mathur who states that the petitioner had himself surrendered before the CBI. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the CBI that some other transactions in relation to allotment of plots at Hudson Line are also being investigated and, therefore, it will not be desirable to grant bail to the petitioner. At the same time, it is not disputed that so far as the present FIR bearing No. RC DAI- 2007-A-0025 is concerned, the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet in the court has been filed.
7. Admittedly, petitioner Ashok Malhotra is in custody since August 6, 2007. He was released on interim bail between November 6, 2007 to November 23, 2007 and during this period, there is no allegation that he misused the benefit of interim bail. The other accused persons who have been booked for the same offences have not been arrested particularly, Lal Mani, against whom there are specific allegations that it is he who forged the documents and appended his thumb impression on the same. In any case, now that the charge-sheet has been filed, there is no scope of the petitioner tampering with the documents or hampering investigation. It is not disputed that one other accused, namely, Arun Kumar Mishra, Deputy Director (OSB), Delhi Development Authority, has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
8. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the petitioner on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court/Duty Magistrate. He shall surrender his passport to the concerned Court and shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the court. The petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer every alternate Monday between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation that the involvement of the petitioner in other transactions relating to the same land is being investigated and that in case incriminating material is found against him, CBI be granted liberty to arrest him in those cases. Though the CBI needs no such liberty, yet, it is clarified that in case incriminating material is found against the petitioner in any other transaction, the CBI shall be at liberty to arrest him as per law. Nothing said in this order shall be taken to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
9. The bail application is disposed of. dusty. Crl. M.A.No. 315/08 Vide RC No. DAI-2007-A-0034 dated August 16, 2007, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case under Sections 120B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner - Ashok Malhotra and eleven others. During the course of investigation, Section 467 IPC was also added and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and others under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the court of Special Judge, CBI at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
10. The petitioner is in custody since August 6, 2007 except for a brief period from November 6, 2007 when he was released on interim bail till November 23, 2007 on which date he was remanded back to judicial custody. He has filed petition under Sections 482/483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that his detention after the expiry of 90 days from the date of his arrest is illegal and without authority of law. Consequently, he has sought his release from his alleged illegal detention. Pending hearing and disposal of the same, he has filed present application seeking regular bail on merits. It is the application for bail which is the subject matter of this order. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the bail application are as under:
During the period 2004-07, under a Scheme of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the erstwhile residents of Gautam Nagar jhuggi jhopri were to be resettled and each resident family was to be given a plot in Molarband Phase II, New Delhi.
11. It is alleged that during the year 2007, petitioner Ashok Malhotra along with officers of Slum Upgradation and Rehabilitation (SUR), Slum and JJ Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, namely, Shri Bhuvneshwar Singh, Additional Commissioner, Shri S.N.S.Sidhu, Director, Shri Philip Toppo, Dy. Director, Shri Sumer Chand Garg, Asstt. Director, Shri Atul Vashishtha, UDC, Shri Sher Singh, Asstt. Engineer, Shri Nank Chand Khandelwal, Junior Engineer and four other persons namely, Shri Ashok Jain, Shri Ravinder Singh Sandhu, Shri Lal Mani who is Under Secretary in Delhi Vidhan Sabha and Shri Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji entered into a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance thereof prepared forged documents in the name of fictitious persons showing them to be the erstwhile residents of Gautam Nagar Jhuggi Jhopri area. As per the Scheme, the erstwhile occupants of the land in Gautam Nagar Jhuggi Jhopri in order to qualify for allotment of plots were supposed to make applications to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi along with their identity proofs and affidavits indicating that earlier they were in occupation of the land in Gautam Nagar Jhuggi Jhopri area. The officers of the MCD, on the other hand, were required to verify those documents and were also required to have personal interviews with the claimants. It is the case of the CBI that the officers of the MCD in conspiracy with the petitioner, Lal Mani and Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji gave a complete go-bye to the guidelines laid down for allotment of plots. On the contrary, acting on the forged and fabricated documents, they handed over allotment letters to Ashok Malhotra and Ashok Jain which they sold in open market resulting in wrongful gains to each one of them.
12. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that whereas the petitioner is under arrest since August 6, 2007, Lal Mani, Under Secretary, Delhi Vidhan Sabha and Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji, private persons, who as per the CBI's own case had forged and fabricated documents were never arrested and besides them, three other MCD officers, namely, Shri Bhuvneshwar Singh, Nanak Chand Khandelwal and Sher Singh were also not arrested. Therefore, it is contended that the CBI has been selective in arresting the persons involved in the racket even though all of them were acting in connivance with each other and thus were similarly placed.
13. It is not disputed by learned Counsel appearing for CBI that Lal Mani, Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji along with other afore-mentioned officers of the MCD who have been similarly booked and are facing trial like the petitioner have not been arrested. It is stated that they were not arrested because they had co-operated in the investigation whereas the presence of the petitioner had to be secured by getting non-bailable warrants issued against him. This fact is disputed by learned Senior Counsel Shri Dinesh Mathur who states that the petitioner had himself surrendered before the CBI. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the CBI that some other transactions in relation to allotment of plots at Gautam Nagar Jhuggi Jhopri area are also being investigated and, therefore, it will not be desirable to grant bail to the petitioner. At the same time, it is not disputed that so far as the present FIR bearing No. RC DAI-2007-A-0034 is concerned, the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet in the court has been filed. Admittedly, petitioner Ashok Malhotra is in custody since August 6, 2007. He was released on interim bail between November 6, 2007 to November 23, 2007 and during this period, there is no allegation that he misused the benefit of interim bail. Some of the other accused persons who have been booked for the same offences have not been arrested particularly, Lal Mani and Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji against whom there are specific allegations that it is they who forged the documents and appended their thumb impressions on the same. In any case, now that the charge-sheet has been filed, there is no scope of the petitioner tampering with the documents or hampering investigation. It is not disputed that one other accused, namely, S.N.S.Sidhu, Director, Slum Upgradation and Rehabilitation (SUR), Slum and JJ Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
14. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the petitioner on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court/Duty Magistrate. He shall surrender his passport to the concerned Court and shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the court. The petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer every alternate Monday between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation that the involvement of the petitioner in other transactions relating to the same land is being investigated and that in case incriminating material is found against him, the CBI be granted liberty to arrest him in those cases. Though the CBI needs no such liberty, yet, it is clarified that in case incriminating material is found against the petitioner in any other transaction, the CBI shall be at liberty to arrest him as per law. Nothing said in this order shall be taken to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
15. The bail application is disposed of. dusty.
Crl. M.C.No. 3795/0716. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that as the petitioner has been granted bail, he does not wish to press the main petition. The same is dismissed as withdrawn.