Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaskaran Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392
1
CRM-M-62075-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-62075-2023
Reserved on: 01.03.2024.
Pronounced on: 20.03.2024.
Jaskaran Singh ...Pe!!oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate and
Mr. Keerat Dhillon, Advocate
for the pe!!oner.
Mr. Anurag Chopra, Addl. AG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta!on Sec!ons
16 02.05.2023 Vigilance Bureau, 409, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471,
Flying Squad-I, 120-B IPC (Sec!on 201 added
Mohali later on) and Sec!ons 13(1)(a),
13(2) of PC (Amendment) Act
2018
1. A Naib Tehsildar, posted in GMADA, [Greater Mohali Area Development Authority], apprehending arrest for wrongfully recommending the release of the massive amount of compensa!on of Rs. 123,35,67,575/- (One hundred twenty- three crore thirty-five lac sixty-seven thousand five hundred seventy-five only), contrary to their en!tlement, had come up before this Court under Sec!on 438 CrPC seeking an!cipatory bail.
2. On 11.12.2023, when the maHer was listed for the first !me before this Court, the State counsel had a serious objec!on to the interim bail on the ground that the pe!!oner had gone to Australia and was a flight risk. The pe!!oner's counsel had submiHed that he had a return !cket and would undoubtedly return. In addi!on, counsel for the pe!!oner referred to para 8 (xx) and stated that he would have no objec!on to any terms and condi!ons imposed by this Court. On this, this Court had granted interim an!cipatory bail to the pe!!oner on 11.12.2023 subject to the pe!!oner declaring his and his 1 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 2 CRM-M-62075-2023 spouse's assets in terms of para no. 18 of the said order. The pe!!oner's counsel stated that the said order was voluntarily complied with.
3. The prosecu!on's case is being extracted from the reply dated 21.12.2023 filed by the concerned Inspector General of Police, which reads as follows: -
"(4). That it is respec ully submi ed that with regard to the subject ma er of the present pe on, it is submi ed that the case/ FIR No.16, Dated 02.05.2023, under sec on 409, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 13(1) r/w 13(2) Preven on of Corrup on Act, 1988 as Amended by Preven on of Corrup on (Amendment) Act 2018 (Sec on 201 IPC added later on) at Police Sta on Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-1, Punjab at Mohali on the basis of the inquiry report in Complaint number 707 of 2022, which was ini ated on the basis of a Source Informa on Report.
As per the same, in year 2016- 17. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (herein a;er referred to as 'GMADA') started process of acquisi on of land for public purpose, namely se=ng up of "Aerotropolis Residen al Project near IT City and Aero City Scheme" in different villages regarding which Social Impact Assessment (hereina;er referred to as 'SIA) no fica on under sec on 4 of the Right to Fair Compensa on and Transparency in Land Acquisi on, Rehabilita on, and Rese lement Act, 2013 (hereina;er referred to as 'Act') was issued on 05.12.2017. Accordingly, a public no ce dated 20.12.2017 regarding this no fica on, with a view to associate the interested persons in carrying out SIA study was also published in two leading newspapers viz "The Tribune' (English version) and 'Ajit' (Punjabi version) of 20.12.2017. Subsequently, Preliminary No fica on number 06/05/2017- 6HG1/1412820/1 dated 06.02.2019 under sec on 11 of the Act was issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development for acquisi on of 737.1252 acres of land of 5 Villages (Bakarpur, Naraingarh, Safipur, Chhat & Rurka) of District S.A.S. Nagar. It is further submi ed that this no fica on under Sec on 11 of the Act was published in the official Gaze e dated 06.02.2019 and also in two leading newspapers i.e. 'The Tribune' (English language) and 'Rozana Ajit' (Punjabi language) on 19.02.2019. Besides this, the aforesaid no fica on was also displayed on the no ce boards of Gram panchayats of Villages Bakarpur, Naingarh, Safipur, Chhat & Rurka and the same were also forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, S.A.S. Nagar and Tehsildar, Mohali vide le er no. 10986-91 dated 18.02.2019. This no fica on was also uploaded on the official website (Gmada.gov.in) of GMADA for the informa on of General Public. It is per nent to men on here that the substance regarding the 2 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 3 CRM-M-62075-2023 issuance of no fica on u/s 11 of the Act also got entered in the Rapat Roznamcha of Village Bakarpur vide Rapat No. 231 dated 11.03.2019 by the concerned Halqa Patwari. Therea;er, declara on under sec on 19 of the Act was issued vide no fica on no. 06/05/2017-6HG1/1170/A1 dated 28.08.2020 for acquisi on of 581.1867 acres of land of Villages Bakarpur, Safipur and Rurka (Pocket-A). This declara on under Sec on 19 of the Act was published in the Official Gaze e on 28.08.2020 and in 2 leading newspapers i.e. 'Hindustan Times' (English version) and 'Rozana Ajiť' (Punjabi version) dated 29.08.2020. Further, process of acquisi on was completed vide Award number 573 dated 08.01.2021, Pocket-A for total area of 579.71 acres situated at village Bakarpur, Rurka and Safipur; vide Award number 574 dated 08.01.2021, Pocket-B for total area of 206.39 acres at village Ma ran, Manoli and Seon; vide Award number 575 dated 08.01.2021, Pocket -C for total area of 242.54 acres at village Pa on, Manoli and Seon; vide Award number 576 dated 08.01.2021, Pocket -D for total area of 493.88 acres at village Pa on, Manoli, Saini Majra and Chau Majra: vide Award number 577 dated 12.02.2021, Pocket-A at village Naraingarh for total area of 68.66 acres and vide Award number 578 dated 12.02.2021, Pocket-A at village Cha for total area of 60.41 acres.
(5). That, during enquiry it transpired that certain beneficiaries who have claimed compensa on for fruit trees situated on their land were familiar with the concerned officials/higher-ups of GMADA and were having prior informa on of the land acquisi on as well as the villages, where the land was to be acquired and moreover, they were also aware that the compensa on for trees, including fruit bearing trees, is assessed separately from the value of the land acquired. Subsequently, these individuals or groups in a preplanned way started purchasing and accumula ng the land which was going to be acquired by the Authority with inten on to exploit the provisions of the Act for their own wrongful gain in connivance with the concerned officials of Revenue Department, LAC, GMADA, Hor culture Department etc. Further, the accused persons in order to obtain wrongful higher compensa on showed Guava orchards to be present on their land/ land taken on lease and in order to influence assessment of market value showed the age of Guava trees to be 4 or more than 4 years, so that those are considered as fruit yielding. To do so, these accused persons get the Revenue/ Khasra Girdawri Register record pertaining to village Bakarpur for the years 2016 to 2021 tampered with the help of co- accused revenue Patwari Bachi ar Singh and got men oned in the record that Guava trees are planted since year 2016. Moreover, Bachi ar Singh Patwari replaced the original Khasra Girdawri Register pertaining to Khasra number 1 //25 to 25// 12/2 from year 2016 to 2021 by ge=ng printout of the proformas of Khasra Girdawri Register from Fard Kendra, Mohali on 15.04.2019 at 3 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 4 CRM-M-62075-2023 04:47:03 evening and prepared ante-dated Khasra Girdawri Register w.e.f. 'Sauni'-2016 showing presence of Guava orchards in the land of the accused persons. That for the purpose of determining the compensa on for the Guava trees, assessment report was prepared by the Hor culture Department in accordance with the Act and the assessing officials of the said Department granted undue benefit (higher compensa on) to the beneficiaries by considering 2000- 2500 number of trees present per acre of land and by declaring such age and category of plants to enable the beneficiaries to receive compensa on of standing Guava trees for next 20 years on the basis of the fact that Guava plants yield fruits for 20 years. Moreover, the accused officials of Hor culture Department have evaluated Guava trees on the Khasra numbers on which as per the Khasra Girdawri Register, crops of wheat and rice are shown to be cul vated.
(6). That it is per nent to men on here that the Act was enacted with the inten on of safeguarding the rights of landowners and ensuring fair compensa on during land acquisi on. However, in the present case the accused beneficiaries in connivance with the concerned officials of Revenue Department, Land Acquisi on Collector, GMADA and Hor culture Department have exploited the provisions of the Act for their own wrongful gain causing loss to the exchequer by involving in fraudulent ac vi es such as manipula ng land records, influencing compensa on assessments, or coercing landowners into selling/ leasing out their lands at unfair prices.
(7). It is per nent to men on here that according to Sec on 26 of the Act, date for determina on of market value of acquired land shall be the date on which the no fica on has been issued under Sec on 11. Moreover, as per Sec on 27 of the Act the Collector having determined the market value of the land to be acquired shall calculate the total amount of compensa on to be paid to the land owner by including all assets a ached to the land. As such, market value of the assets (trees/ fruit trees/ building etc.) a ached to the land acquired is determined separately from the value of the land.
(8). Under the Act, determina on of the age and category of fruit- bearing plants is crucial for calcula ng their market value and this assessment is typically done by hor culture officials or experts. These officials assess various factors to determine the age and category of the plants for the purpose of evalua ng market value. The assessment may involve examining the physical characteris cs of the plants, such as the size, trunk girth, branching pa ern, and overall health. These parameters can provide indica ons of the plant's age and its stage of fruit-bearing.
4 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 5 CRM-M-62075-2023 (9). Department of Hor culture, Punjab has formulated a formula for calcula on of the market value in respect of fruit trees standing on the acquired land. This formula is known as 'Evalua on of Fruit Trees Formula' and it was 1 st evolved in 1954, which was revised in 1966 and then in 1985. Further, almost 2 decades later, a commi ee was appointed by the Punjab Government to revise the old formula and the commi ee devised a new formula dated 21.06.2004 for calcula ng the compensa on to be paid to the Orchardists. It is per nent to men on here that, the defini on of orchard was not men oned in earlier formulas and all the calculated factors were implemented on the sca ered plants. However, in the formula dated 21.06.2004, it was categorically men oned that a half acre unit (except grapes) will be considered as an orchard on which all the factors of evalua on will be applicable. Sca ered plants will be considered as non- commercial and during assessment they will be kept in 'D' class and mortality factor will not be applicable on such plants. It is per nent to men on here that in the present case, the evalua on of fruit (Guava) trees was calculated in accordance with formula dated 21.06.2004 and the maximum number of trees per acre to be considered for assessment was not men oned in this formula. However, a;er comple on of the evalua on in January 2022 of the fruit trees standing on the land acquired for Aerotropolis scheme on the basis of formula dated 21.06.2004, later in year 2022 the Department of Hor culture ini ated process to revise this formula and a commi ee was appointed by the Punjab Government for the same. Subsequently, a new formula dated 07.10.2022 for Evalua on of Fruit Trees was devised for calcula ng the compensa on to be paid for the fruit trees and the es mated non-recurring expenditure and recurring expenditure were revised per plant. Moreover, maximum number of plants per acre to be considered for assessment of various fruit trees was fixed in this new formula and for Guava Trees, the maximum number of plants per acre is categorically fixed as 110, if plants are planted at a distance of 20 feet x 20 feet and 132, if plants are planted in high density/ closer i.e. at a distance of 20 feet x 17 feet.
(10). That the present pe oner Jaskaran Singh was posted as Naib-Tehsildar in the office of Land Acquisi on Collector (hereina;er referred as 'LAC'), Urban Development Punjab at GMADA on 02.08.2021 and he got transferred on 24.06.2022 from this post. The present pe oner in land acquisi on office typically has du es such as conduc ng surveys, verifying land records, ensure proper documenta on, liaise with stakeholders during land acquisi on proceedings and assis ng in the acquisi on process.
5 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 6 CRM-M-62075-2023
4. The prosecu!on's further case is being consumed from the reply dated 26.02.2024 filed by the concerned Inspector General of Police, which reads as follows: -
(3). That, in the present case it has surfaced that the accused beneficiaries in connivance with the concerned officials of Revenue Department, Land Acquisi on Collector, GMADA and Hor culture Department have exploited the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensa on and Transparency in Land Acquisi on, Rehabilita on, and Rese lement Act, 2013 (hereina;er referred to as 'Act) for their own wrongful gain causing loss to the exchequer by involving in fraudulent ac vi es such as manipula ng land records, influencing compensa on assessments, or coercing landowners into selling/ leasing out their lands at unfair prices. That the process of embezzlement can be broadly dis nguished into two parts; firstly ge=ng the tailor made assessment reports prepared with the connivance of the concerned Hor culture Development Officers and other higher officials of the Hor culture Department, Punjab, wherein, maximum possible market value of the said guava plants was evaluated considering planta on of 2000-2500 plants per acre and age of the plants to be 4-5 years (fruit yielding) and therea;er, ge=ng the compensa on released from the LAC, GMADA in accordance with the tailor made reports sent by Hor culture Department to LAC, GMADA.
(4). That, detailed facts have already been submi ed in this Hon'ble Court vide the first reply/ status report dated 21.12.2023 by the State. However, relevant proceedings of the Hor culture Department and LAC, GMADA are being reiterated here for ready reference of this Hon'ble Court. A;er issuance of no fica on alongwith details of the land to be acquired for Pocket-A under sec on 11 of the Act on 06.02.2019, the office of LAC, LMADA obtained updated rela ve land records pertaining to ownership of the land under acquisi on from the Revenue Department and prepared list of landowners in accordance with khasra numbers under acquisi on. Therea;er, preliminary survey of land to be acquired was conducted by the acquisi on Authority and a;er iden fying and coun ng the number of Assets (building, tubewell and pipeline, fruit bearing trees and non-fruit bearing trees), separate survey lists in accordance with the type of Asset a ached with the land (khasra number wise) was prepared.
Subsequently, a detailed survey list pertaining to fruit bearing trees a ached with the land under acquisi on of Pocket-A Village- Bakarpur and others was prepared and further sent by LAC, GMADA to the Director Hor culture vide le er number 2819 dated 09.11.2020 for determina on of market value of said trees. Similarly, LAC sent other survey lists of fruit trees pertaining to 6 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 7 CRM-M-62075-2023 Pocket-B vide le er number 2786 dated 09.11.2020, Pocket-C vide le er number 2825 dated 09.11.2020 and Pocket-D vide le er number 2813 dated 09.11.2020 respec vely to Director Hor culture for determina on of market value of fruit trees present on the land under acquisi on.
(5). Therea;er, first assessment report pertaining to Pocket-A was prepared by co-accused Jaspreet Singh Sidhu, HDO and this report was further sent by Director Hor culture to LAC, GMADA vide le er dated 04.03.2021. Subsequently, the landowners/ beneficiaries started submi=ng their 'payment forms' with LAC, GMADA with request to release their compensa on amount against fruit bearing trees. As per record of LAC, GMADA first no ng for release of compensa on was ini ated on 15.04.2021 pertaining to 9 landowners/ beneficiaries. Therea;er, a mee ng was held by Jagdeep Sehgal, PCS, the then LAC, GMADA with his staff on 29.04.2021, wherein, proposal for release of compensa on amount to 15 beneficiaries was considered and it was decided that payment can be released to such landowner whose name is present simultaneously in both the revenue record and the Hor culture record. Eventually, Sh. Pardeep Aggarwal, IAS, Chief Administrator (herein a;er referred to as CA), GMADA on 01.06.2021 categorically directed that before releasing any payment LAC GMADA will inspect 100% of the area/ site and would submit weekly report through Addi onal Chief Administrator (herein a;er referred to as ACA) and also ACA would inspect 20% of the area/ site randomly and cer fy the report of LAC. Moreover, before releasing the payment in accordance with the assessment report prepared by the Hor culture Department, informa on in accordance with the following proforma is to be prepared:-
S. Name Khasr Coun n Amou Name Report
No of the a No. g of nt of and regarding
. benefi Structu the Designa inspec o
-ciary re, compe on of the n of the
Orchar ns- authority site and
d, a on who has signature
Tubewe to be prepared s of the
ll, releas the Land
House, ed report Acquisi o
Fruit regarding n
bearing inspec o Collector
plants n the site
and and
non- signature
fruit s
bearing
7 of 25
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392
8
CRM-M-62075-2023
plants
(6). Subsequently, in pursuance of the instruc ons dated 01.06.2021 of the CA, GMADA, Jagdeep Sehgal, PCS, LAC visited the site on 07.06.2021 and inspected land pertaining to 11 landowners/ beneficiaries; namely, Abhishek Kansal, Mandeep Singh, Parshotam Dass Gupta, Sunita Gupta, Gaurav Kansal, Nacha ar Singh, Lakhbir Singh, Karam Singh, Harbinder Kaur, Sawarnjit Kaur and Gurdeep Singh. Further, Rajesh Dhiman, PCS (now IAS), ACA, GMADA also inspected the site pertaining to three out of eleven landowners, namely Harbinder Kaur, Karam Singh and Gurdeep Singh.
(7). Subsequently, this ma er pertaining to release of compensa on to total 11 beneficiaries was sent for approval of CA, GMADA, however, CA, GMADA again very diligently made note dated 29.06.2021 that, "report seen.
All due care to be taken before making payment to ensure that there is no wrong payment made. Proper videography to be done and proper record should be maintained.
LAC branch also examine whether Aerotropolis area is also covered under GIS mapping tender (Drone survey) all revenue record should be checked specially Girdawris for past years as well as Jamabandis to ascertain that orchard etc. existed since when also check whether these are just saplings or fruit giving plants/ trees."
(8). Eventually, in the mean me Rajesh Dhiman, IAS, got transferred from GMADA and his successor Damanjit Singh, PCS, ACA, GMADA categorically directed on 05.07.2021 that, "as desired by CA (G) above men oned precau ons/ instruc ons be carried out. Record from revenue department (Girdawri), market commi ee for previous years receipts to be put-up at the earliest."
(9). Further, Jagdeep Sehgal, PCS, LAC recorded his note on 06.07.2021 that, "It is submi ed that payment of only those persons is being made whose ownership has been verified by NT- GMADA, assessment of value of trees has been done by Hor culture dept. field verifica on has been done by undersigned and W/ ACA Sir. As further desired by W/ CA Sir, payment will be made a;er videography and scru nizing of Girdawri record by revenue branch. Submi ed for approval please." This note was routed through Damanit Singh, PCS, ACA, GMADA for approval of 8 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 9 CRM-M-62075-2023 CA, which was accorded on 08.07.2021 with direc ons that, "Approved; all precau ons to be made so that there is no wrong payment made to non-eligible person".
(10). Therea;er, following payments to the said landowners were released by the office of LAC on the basis of the first assessment report of Jaspreet Singh Sidhu, HDO : -
S.No. Name of Owner/beneficiary Amount in Rs.
1. Parshotam Dass Gupta 2391269
2. Gaurav Kansal 2391269
3. Abhishek Kansal 2391269
4. Sunita Gupta 2391269
5. Harbinder Kaur 125529567
6. Lakhmir Singh 6096956
7. Nachha ar Singh 6096956
8. Sawarnjit Kaur 20733930
Total 16,80,22,485
(11). That, it is per nent to men on here that another no ng for release of compensa on was ini ated simultaneously on 23.06.2021 pertaining to 19 landowners/ beneficiaries and Jagdeep Sehgal, PCS, LAC has recorded his note dated 25.06.2021 that, "As per the orders dated 01.06 W/CA Sir, field verifica on was carried out An -GMADA, Staff and HDO (Hor culture Dept.) HDO has submi ed detailed report about how the assessment/ valua on of the planta on is done as per age, variety etc. While an -GMADA has verified the number of tree. The report is being submi ed for necessary ac on." The report was further forwarded to Rajesh Dhiman, ACA, who visited the site and submi ed inspec on report dated 28.06.2021 pertaining to 8 landowners to the LAC, GMADA. Therea;er, Jagdeep Sehgal, LAC, made another note dated 09.07.2021, that "as per the direc ons of W/CA Sir dated 08/07, all precau ons regarding ownership, revenue record (Jamabandi) and videography should be made while disbursement."
(12). That it is per nent to men on here that no payment was found to be released with respect to the second no ng (supra) as in the mean me Director Hor culture has issued a le er dated 12.07.2021 to LAC, GMADA to stop payments pertaining to Pocket-A ll further orders and subsequently, no more payments were released by LAC, GMADA ll second assessment report qua 9 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 10 CRM-M-62075-2023 Pocket-A prepared by co-accused Vaishali, HDO was received in the LAC office on 07.01.2022.
(13). That it is per nent to men on here that in the mean me the present pe oner Jaskarn Singh Brar joined as Naib Tehsildar in LAC, GMADA office in August, 2021 and Jagdish Singh Johal, PCS also joined as LAC, GMADA on 27.10.2021. As such, before joining of the present pe oner total payments of Rs. 16,80,22,485/- pertaining to compensa on for fruit bearing trees was released to only 8 landowners/ beneficiaries and the remaining payments amoun ng to total Rs. 123,35,67,575/- pertaining to remaining 101 beneficiaries were released by co- accused Jagdish Singh Johal, PCS, LAC, GMADA without visi ng and inspec ng any site and vehemently ignoring the specific condi ons imposed by the CA, MADA vide order dated 01.06.2021. It is of utmost importance to consider the fact that the CA, GMADA has categorically instructed to collect and check the revenue record (Khasra Girdawri/ Jamabandi) to ascertain the age of the said guava plants as to whether those are just saplings or fruit bearing trees and the expert person to analyze the revenue record in the LAC office was the Naib-Tehsildar/ present pe oner, who is a revenue officer.
(14). That it is per nent to men on here that co-accused Jagdish Singh Johal, PCS, LAC and the present pe oner Jaskaran Singh Brar, Naib-Tehsildar were well aware of the ac vi es/ efforts of the land mafia headed by main accused Bhupinder Singh in connivance with other co-accused officials to get the compensa on released in accordance with the tailor made assessment reports of the Hor culture Department and the condi ons imposed by the Bureau predecessor CA, GMADA before release of such payments. That a;er receiving le er dated 12.07.2021 of Director Hor culture, LAC, GMADA has stopped all the payments pertaining to compensa on for fruit bearing trees. Subsequently, Jagdish Singh Johal, LAC a;er joining on 27.10.2021 ini ated a no ng dated 24.11.2021 seeking approval from CA, GMADA for release of payment for fruit bearing trees situated in Pocket-B, Pocket-C and Pocket-D. Surprisingly, this note was not routed through ACA, GMADA and was directly dealt by Vipul Ujjawal, IAS, CA, GMADA, on 24.11.2021, who accorded his approval while giving note, "X' Approved, however before proceeding further LAC will personally ensure no other issue remain/ pending prior to issuing LOIs of allowed pockets". Therea;er, LAC, GMADA started releasing payments to landowners/ beneficiaries whose land was situated in Pocket-B, Pocket-C and Pocket-D. (15). Subsequently, 2nd assessment report pertaining to Pocket- A prepared by co-accused Vaishali, HDO was received in the office 10 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 11 CRM-M-62075-2023 of LAC, GMADA on 07.01.2022 and therea;er, Jagdish Singh Johal, LAC ini ated another no ng dated 04.02.2022 seeking approval from CA, GMADA for release of payment for fruit bearing trees situated in Pocket-A. Again, this note was not routed through ACA, GMADA and was directly approved by Vipul Ujjawal, IAS, CA, GMADA, on 07.02.2022.
(16). Henceforth, it is per nent to men on here that the present pe oner including the LAC Jagdish Singh Johal and patwaris Surinder Pal and Surinderpal Singh were found to have deliberately ignored the above men oned instruc ons/ direc ons of the CA,GMADA, ACA, GMADA before verifying payment forms of 101 beneficiaries resul ng in release of total Rs. 123,35,67,575/- (One hundred twenty three crore thirty five lac sixty seven thousand five hundred seventy five only) as the compensa on amount for fruit bearing trees only. The verifica on of landowners/ land records and recommenda ons for release of compensa on amount was found to have been made by the present pe oner in year 2022 only on the basis of no ng/ report of his subordinates and co-accused Patwaris Surinder Pal Singh and Surinderpal working in the office of LAC, MADA. As per record of LAC, GMADA, Girdawri record and market commi ee record pertaining to sale of produce/ fruits of the said orchards were not considered by the revenue branch of the LAC and further the land/sites of the beneficiaries were never inspected by LAC, GMADA and/ or ACA, GMADA in pursuance of the direc ons of CA, GMADA. Furthermore, no record pertaining to videography of site inspec on of the land is available in LAC, GMADA.
(17). That it is per nent to men on here that the present inves ga on pertains to me span of about 6 years and also involves voluminous documentary record pertaining to the departments of Revenue, Hor culture, LAC, MADA. Moreover, total 96 persons have been nominated as accused ll now out of which 21 have been arrested. Ini ally, the present FIR was registered against 4 public servants including Danesh Kumar, Deputy Director Hor culture, Jaspreet Singh Sidhu, HDO, Vaishali, HDO and Bachi ar Singh, Revenue Patwari, however, during inves ga on as and when substan al evidence has surfaced against other concerned officials they were also nominated as accused accordingly, whereby, 8 more public servants belonging to Hor culture Department and LAC, MADA have been nominated as accused (including the present pe oner). This Hon'ble court was pleased to dismiss the an cipatory bail pe on of co-accused Jaspreet Singh Sidhu, HDO vide order dated 23.01.2024 and therea;er, he was duly arrested on 30.01.2024. During his police custody, he had made some new revela ons regarding the prepara on of tailor made assessment reports by 11 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 12 CRM-M-62075-2023 the Hor culture Department and further tampering/ altera on in these reports to benefit specific co-accused beneficiaries and the persons behind such fraudulent ac vi es. The inves ga on in the present case is underway and detailed facts pertaining to documentary record, oral evidence, digital evidence, forensic evidence and circumstan al evidence are being duly considered qua the role of some higher officials/ employees of Hor culture Department, GMADA, Revenue Department etc. The mely informa on regarding the same have been duly submi ed in this Hon'ble court in the status reports submi ed while opposing the an cipatory/ regular bail pe ons of various accused persons and these facts are being taken to its logical conclusion."
5. The pe!!oner's counsel's general conten!on is that the custodial inves!ga!on is neither needed nor would serve any purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and family.
6. The state's counsel opposes the bail in the present pe!!on and has referred to replies filed by the concerned DySP.
7. I have extensively heard counsel for the pe!!oner and the State on nine dates and have also gone through the record.
8. Pe!!oner's first argument is that Pe!!oner had no responsibility to inspect land physically, and submiHed that the reply of the State would indicate that the Chief Administrator, GMADA, namely, Pardeep Aggarwal, IAS, had passed an order on 01.06.2021, wherein he had categorically directed that before the release of payment, the Land Acquisi!on Collector, GMADA, will inspect 100% area of the site and would submit a weekly report to the Addi!onal Chief Administrator, GMADA. It was further directed that the Addi!onal Chief Administrator, GMADA, would randomly inspect 20% of the site area and cer!fy the report of the Land Acquisi!on Collector. A true translated copy of a leHer dated 01.06.2021 was placed on record as Annexure P/4. This order was passed by the Chief Administrator, GMADA, much before the pe!!oner joined the Land Acquisi!on Collector office, GMADA. In pursuance of the order above, the Land Acquisi!on Collector gave his report aMer physically inspec!ng the area. On such report of physical inspec!on done by Vishavjeet Singh, the then Naib Tehsildar, i.e., the pe!!oner's predecessor, inspec!ons were passed before the pe!!oner assumed the charge in the office of the LAC, GMADA.
12 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 13 CRM-M-62075-2023
9. Counsel for the pe!!oner submiHed that the responsibili!es men!oned above had been affixed on the LAC and the ACA, respec!vely, and the pe!!oner, being the Naib Tehsildar, had never been directed to inspect the land physically. On such an argument by the pe!!oner, this Hon'ble Court directed the state to file a detailed status report on the aspect above. The state filed a status report dated 26.02.2024, wherein it was averred in paragraph 9 that field inspec!on was to be carried out by the LAC and the ACA. The revenue department was to scru!nize the Girdawari record.
10. The State's counsel submiHed that it is of utmost importance to consider that each Applica!on Form of the 101 beneficiaries has been duly stated to have been verified by the present pe!!oner, and Khasra number-wise, specific details about ownership and share of the beneficiary were men!oned in the payment form.
11. An analysis of this argument would lead to an outcome that the pe!!oner's role was to verify the planta!on of guava trees, and he stated to have verified the same, which was contrary to the situa!on on the fields, where the guava planta!on was either not fruit-bearing or were recent planta!ons to grab compensa!on for fruit-bearing trees, or the guava plants were not existent. Thus, the pe!!oner fails to make a case for an!cipatory bail on these grounds.
12. The pe!!oner's counsel submits that the Inves!ga!ng Agency, in an aHempt to protect the senior officials of GMADA, has not implicated ACA and has implicated the pe!!oner along with other Patwaris and Tehsildars. In the present case, to date, the ACA, on whom the responsibility to inspect 20% of the land to be acquired had been affixed, has not been implicated even though it is the case of the Inves!ga!ng Agency that the spot inspec!ons, in terms of the orders of the Chief Administrator, GMADA, were never conducted by the ACA and the LAC.
13. The State's Counsel opposed such an argument and apprised of the State's stand that no person whose involvement is found in this case will stay away from the inves!ga!on.
14. An analysis of this argument would lead to an outcome that the Inves!ga!on is going on and the criminal jurisprudence is that the crime never dies. Simply because, as of date, the Addi!onal Chief Administrator has managed to stay away from the Inves!gator's radar does not imply that on this 13 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 14 CRM-M-62075-2023 ground, the pe!!oner is en!tled to bail or he has accrued a right of bail. As such, this submission has also been dismissed.
15. Pe!!oner's next argument is that even otherwise, the abovemen!oned act of the pe!!oner would fall within the limited scope in which Sec!on 17-A of the Preven!on of Corrup!on Act operates, as the decision above is a policy decision protected by Sec!on 17-A of the Preven!on of Corrup!on Act. Ld. Counsel further argued that The Standard Opera!ng Procedure (SOP) issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions dated 03.09.2021 would reveal that the police officer must seek sanc!on for conduc!ng any enquiry, inquiry or inves!ga!on into any offense alleged to have been commiHed by a public servant about any recommenda!on or any policy decision.
16. The State's Counsel opposes such an argument and states that FIR was preceded by a high-level inquiry approved and sanc!oned by the Government's competent officers. Even otherwise, the issue of Sec!on 17-A of the PC Act does not apply.
17. Sec!on 17-A of Preven!on of Corrup!on Act, which came into force from July 26, 2018, reads as follows:
17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or inves!ga!on of offences relatable to recommenda!ons made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official func!ons or du!es.--
No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or inves!ga!on into any offence alleged to have been commiHed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommenda!on made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official func!ons or du!es, without the previous approval--
(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the !me when the offence was alleged to have been commiHed, in connec!on with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the !me when the offence was alleged to have been commiHed, in connec!on with the affairs of a State, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the !me when the offence was alleged to have been commiHed:
Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accep!ng or aHemp!ng to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:
Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this sec!on within a period of three months, which 14 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 15 CRM-M-62075-2023 may, for reasons to be recorded in wri!ng by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month.
18. Regarding the pe!!oner's argument of viola!on of Sec!on 17-A of the PC Act, the pe!!oner neither made any recommenda!ons nor took a decision but fabricated the approvals by showing the existence of guava trees on the land, where either such plants did not exist or were recently planted but were not fruit-bearing. He did not refer to the vital revenue record of Khasra Girdawari, where Patwari makes the entry of crops over the land under cul!va!on. The pe!!oner, other concerned government employees, landowners, and other beneficiaries ploHed to show a guava planta!on, which would en!tle much more compensa!on for fruit-bearing trees. All these persons firstly got the tailor-made assessment reports prepared with the connivance of the concerned Hor!culture Development Officers and other higher officials of the Hor!culture Department, Punjab, wherein maximum possible market value of the said guava plants was evaluated considering planta!on of 2000-2500 plants per acre and age of the plants to be 4-5 years (fruit yielding) and aMer that, geRng the compensa!on released from the LAC, GMADA by the tailor- made reports sent by Hor!culture Department to LAC, GMADA. The case against the pe!!oner is of approval with malafide working to benefit those landowners, who in connivance with some of the government officials, looted the exchequer by geRng compensa!on for those guava trees, which the pe!!oner approved, without giving any reference to khasra girdawari or other prudent means, further poin!ng towards pe!!oner's malicious intent. Sec!on 17-A of the PC Act does not aHract in the present FIR not only because the FIR was registered aMer the approval of the Government of Punjab but also because the alleged offense is neither relatable to any recommenda!on made nor to any decision taken by the pe!!oner in the discharge of his official func!ons or du!es. The purported recommenda!ons would not fall under the defini!on of recommenda!ons made because maliciously approving the existence of non-existent fruit-bearing trees by no stretch of the imagina!on can be a recommenda!on made within the meaning of Sec!on 17-A of the PC Act, nor can it be said to be a decision taken in such terms.
19. The pe!!oner's counsel's next argument is that the pe!!oner's role was limited to forwarding the note to the decision-making authority. Ld. Counsel argued that the allega!ons are that co-accused Surinder Pal Singh Patwari moved a note dated 08.02.2022 to the LAC, GMADA, about releasing the 15 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 16 CRM-M-62075-2023 compensa!on based on the record maintained by the Hor!culture Department (Annexure P/6). A perusal of the record would reveal that Surinder Pal Singh moved the no!ng, and the LAC subsequently approved it, whereas the present pe!!oner, on receiving the said note from Surinder Pal Singh, routed it to the decision-making authority, which was the LAC. The pe!!oner's counsel further argued that neither the note was moved by the pe!!oner nor was the approval for the note accorded by the present pe!!oner. The pe!!oner's role was limited to forwarding the note to the decision-making authority, and merely forwarding the note to the competent decision-making authority would not aHract criminal culpability against the pe!!oner.
20. The State's counsel submiHed that undue haste was observed in the process of obtaining approval for the release of the compensa!on amount, as the no!ng was ini!ated by the patwari on 08.02.2022 and the same day this no!ng was dealt with by the present pe!!oner, who forwarded his consent to the LAC, who also accorded his approval on the same day. Subsequently, this no!ng was downmarked to the present pe!!oner on the same day, who further sent it to the patwari on the same day, who again marked it to the present pe!!oner along with the payment forms for release of the payments on the same day, i.e., 08.02.2022. AMer that, the pe!!oner dealt with this no!ng, a third !me on the same day and marking it for AC(F&A) for further proceedings.
21. An analysis of the arguments would lead to an inference that the role of the pe!!oner was not limited to forwarding the note to the decision-making authority as if the co-accused patwari was diligent enough to observe and men!on that ownership of some land owners in the assessment report of the Hor!culture Department is not by the ownership men!oned in the revenue record, but, the present pe!!oner who is a revenue officer and aware of the fact that the Hor!culture Department maintains no ownership record forwarded the proposal of the patwari to release the payment by the wrongful ownership men!oned in the report of the Hor!culture Department. Instead of raising objec!ons to this no!ng, the present pe!!oner deliberately chose to remain silent. Moreover, it is a well-established case that the co-accused Hor!culture officials prepared assessment reports to pass on the maximum possible wrongful gain to the accused beneficiaries. The main accused, Bhupinder Singh, prepared the assessment report, which was later forged/tampered with aMer reaching the LAC office. All these acts of chea!ng/forgery/criminal conspiracy reached their pinnacle only aMer the present pe!!oner, in connivance with his 16 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 17 CRM-M-62075-2023 LAC, allowed the release of compensa!on for fruit-bearing trees by the tailor- made assessment reports, ignoring their revenue record/L.A-7 record. Thus, the pe!!oner is not en!tled to an!cipatory bail even on this ground.
22. The Counsel for the pe!!oner further submiHed that another allega!on is that the landowners were released compensa!on for fruit-bearing trees despite having purchased the land aMer Sec!on 11 no!fica!on. The allega!on against the pe!!oner is that he had recommended releasing the possession to eighty-nine landowners/beneficiaries.
23. The pe!!oner's counsel submiHed that it is per!nent to men!on herein that out of the list of 89 land owners/beneficiaries, emphasis has been made by the Inves!ga!ng Agency in the context of 10 beneficiaries as it is alleged that they were not recorded as land owners in the LA-7 by LAC, GMADA by the revenue record. A bare perusal of the record would reveal that the entries in the record concerning the landowners above had been made before the pe!!oner even assumed the charge. Moreover, the land owners whose names have been given in the reply, including Chesta, Rashmi Arora, Neelam Bansal, Kiran Bansal, Nisha Garg, Bimla MiHal, Chanchal Kumar, etc., had moved an applica!on before the Land Acquisi!on Collector, GMADA, for releasing compensa!on to them as they are in actual possession of the land. He argued that the landowners had moved an applica!on to LAC GMADA, as the land was jointly owned, seeking a report from the Tehsildar Office to prove their ownership and possession for the compensa!on to be released. AMer that, a report was received from the GMADA highligh!ng that the compensa!on for fruit-bearing trees was to be released based on possession, and it was appropriate in this regard that a report from Naib Tehsildar be called in to ascertain the joint ownership. AMer that, a report dated 05.04.2021 from the concerned Tehsildar was received in the office of the LAC, wherein it was stated that the spot was examined by the Nambardar PaviHar Singh and Sarpanch Jagtar Singh of Village Bakarpur and the khasra numbers, against whom the informa!on was sought, were jointly owned and were in possession of the persons above and all these developments occurred before the pe!!oner joined GMADA, as it is the admiHed case of the par!es that the pe!!oner joined GMADA only on 02.08.2021.
24. The pe!!oner's counsel further submiHed that the allega!on that the names of certain landowners to whom compensa!on was released were not owners of the land as per the revenue record is fiercely incorrect as a perusal of 17 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 18 CRM-M-62075-2023 the record would reveal that as of the date the compensa!on was to be released, the names of the said landowners was duly reflected in the revenue records. To substan!ate aforesaid, the pe!!oner had filed an addi!onal affidavit dated 18.01.2023 and submiHed a table indica!ng the date on which the land was purchased by the nine landowners above and the dates on which the muta!on of the land had been sanc!oned. Counsel argued a perusal of the same would reveal that on the date the compensa!on was released, the names of these nine people were duly reflected in the revenue records. A copy of the table submiHed by the pe!!oner during arguments is being reproduced below: -
S.No. Muta!on no. Date of Vasika Date of Vasika Name of muta!on no. Purchaser
1. 4598 25.07.2019 2840 14.06.2019 Nisha Garg
2. 4597 25.07.2019 2839 14.06.2019 Neelam Bansal Kiran Bansal
3. 4612 19.09.2019 5364 30.08.2019 Bimla MiHal
4. 4613 19.09.2019 5509 04.09.2019 Bimla MiHal
5. 4639 21.11.2019 7429 06.11.2019 Santosh Kumari
6. 4568 15.04.2019 6162 05.03.2019 Shubham Wadhawan
7. 4649 18.02.2019 8863 18.12.2019 Chanchal Kumar
8. 4564 28.03.2019 5892 26.02.2019 Rupinder Sandhu
9. 4564 28.03.2019 6246 08.03.2019 Binder Singh
25. Ld. Addi!onal Advocate General for the State of Punjab contravened such arguments and argued that to carry out day-to-day work efficiently in the Office of Land Acquisi!on Urban Development, LAC has been provided with domain expert staff about maHers of Revenue, Accounts, Legal and Miscellaneous branch, wherein, Patwaris, Kanugo, Naib Tehsildar (Present pe!!oner), Assistant Controller Finance & Accounts (ACF&A), Sec!on Officer, Accountants, Law Officers, Administra!ve Officer, Superintendent, Senior/Junior Assistants, and other helping staff have responsibili!es. As such, communica!ng with the LAC office is not viable for the Chief Administrator (C.A.) GMADA specifically aHribu!ng responsibili!es/roles to every concerned official; hence, the collec!ve responsibility was given to the LAC by the C.A. However, LAC has to rely upon its staff in the Revenue Branch headed by the Naib Tehsildar (Present Pe!!oner).
26. State's counsel submits that according to Sec!on 26 of Right to Fair Compensa!on and Transparency in Land Acquisi!on, Rehabilita!on and ReseHlement Act, 2013, the date for determina!on of the market value of
18 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 19 CRM-M-62075-2023 acquired land shall be the date on which the no!fica!on has been issued under Sec!on 11 and in this case, it was 06.02.2019. The nine co-accused beneficiaries had purchased the land much aMer issuing preliminary no!fica!on u / s 11 of the Act dated 06.02.2019 without obtaining an exemp!on from the 'Collector' by sec!on 11 (4). About the present maHer, sub-sec!on- 4 of sec!on 11 of the Act is reproduced hereunder:-
"11. Publica on of preliminary no fica on and power of officers.-
xxxxx (4) No person shall make any transac on or cause any transac on of land specified in the preliminary no fica on or create any encumbrances on such land from the date of publica on of such no fica on ll such me as the proceedings under this Chapter are completed: Provided that the Collector may, on the applica on made by the owner of the land so no fied, exempt in special circumstances to be recorded in wri ng, such owner from the opera on of this subsec on: Provided further that any loss or injury suffered by any person due to his wilful viola on of this provision shall not be made up by the Collector."
27. State's Counsel argued that aMer issuance of no!fica!on U / S 11 of the Act, the office of LAC GMADA obtained updated rela!ve land records about ownership of the land under acquisi!on from the Revenue department and further prepared their own record Land Account form-7 (List of land owners by Khasra numbers under acquisi!on). This record was obtained in accordance with the Sec!on-11(5) of the Act, reproduced herein under:-
11. Publica on of preliminary no fica on and power of officers.-
xxxx (5) A;er issuance of no ce under sub-sec on (1), the Collector shall, before the issue of a declara on under sec on 19, undertake and complete the exercise of upda ng of land records as prescribed within a period of two months.
28. State counsel further submiHed that the pe!!oner relies upon the muta!on entries registered by the circle patwari in the revenue record of the village Bakarpur aMer sale deeds were executed aMer the issuance of no!fica!on U/S 11 of the Act on 06.02.2019. However, such possession reports are available for about 5 out of a total of nine beneficiaries only, and no such possession report about the following four wrongful beneficiaries is available on record:-
i. Rupinder Kaur Sandhu
ii. Shubham Wadhavan
iii. Santosh Kumari
19 of 25
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392
20
CRM-M-62075-2023
iv. Binder Singh
29. The State's Counsel submiHed that possession reports were obtained as an aMerthought in mid-year 2021 aMer survey lists about ownership by the revenue record had already been sent by LAC GMADA to the Hor!culture Department. On the date of issuance of the no!fica!on u/s 11, i.e., on 06.02.2019, both the owner and cul!vator in possession were found to be original landowners by the revenue record. The said nine beneficiaries had purchased land without prior approval of the Collector aMer issuance of No!fica!on U / S 11, and even though the circle revenue patwari has entered the muta!on based on the sale deed in his revenue record, no Authority (in this case Collector) has declared or recorded their names as the owners of the land in the record. In the Act, the defini!on of the land owner is described in Sec!on- 3(r) as given below:-
"3. Defini ons-
(r)-"land owner" includes any person,-
(i) whose name is recorded as the owner of the land or building or part thereof, in the records of the authority concerned; or
(ii) any person who is granted forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Tradi onal Forest Dwellers (Recogni on of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) or under any other law for the me being in force; or
(iii) who is en tled to be granted Pa a rights on the land under any law of the State including assigned lands; or
(iv) any person who has been declared as such by an order of the court or Authority;
30. The prosecutor's founda!onal submission is that !ll 02.08.2021, only 08 persons were given benefits, and the pe!!oner, during his tenure, as well as others, including the LAC Jagdish Singh Johal and Patwaris Surinderpal, were found to have deliberately ignored the instruc!ons men!oned above/ direc!ons of the CA, GMADA, ACA, GMADA before verifying payment forms of 101 beneficiaries resul!ng in the release of total Rs. 123,35,67,575/- (One hundred twenty-three crore thirty-five lac sixty-seven thousand five hundred seventy-five only) as the compensa!on amount for fruit-bearing trees only, without verifying the existence of such tree from Girdawari.
31. An analysis of the arguments would lead to an inference that it was essen!al for the pe!!oner to consider every Applica!on Form of all the 101 beneficiaries and then to report that he had duly verified those. Had the 20 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 21 CRM-M-62075-2023 pe!!oner relied upon the Khasra Girdawari register/record of the village, the forgery/tampering/addi!on/dele!on in the record would have revealed the modus operandi to show the ante-dated planta!on of guava trees. Thus, the pe!!oner fails to make a case for an!cipatory bail, even on these grounds.
32. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, the pe!!oner's counsel, submits that there is no allega!on that the pe!!oner has received any illegal gra!fica!on.
33. Mr. Anurag Chopra, Addl. AG, Punjab argued that the inves!ga!on pertains to a !me span of 06 years and involves embezzlement of a massive amount, out of the state exchequer. State counsel on instruc!ons submiHed that they want to arrest the pe!!oner and his custodial interroga!on is required to unearth the en!re scam.
34. The pe!!oner was posted as a Naib Tehsildar from 02.08.2021 to 18.06.2022. The pe!!oner's precise argument is that the allega!on that the pe!!oner did not check the revenue record is incorrect. The allega!on that these nine people were not owners as per LAC of revenue record needs to be corrected, and a reference to Annexure A-1 of the pe!!oner's affidavit dated 18.01.2024 is made. Although the pe!!oner was not supposed to do 100% inspec!on, he was under an obliga!on to refer to the revenue records, including girdawari, i.e., the record of crop planta!on, which is maintained regularly by the Patwari and is under the complete access of the Naib Tehsildar.
35. Although the pe!!oner's silence or lack of dissen!ng note might not be an offense, the pe!!oner was duty-bound to point out the ground reality of a guava orchard and the age of the plants by referring to the Girdawari, which he failed to do in his report.
36. An analysis of the above argument points out the omission on the part of the pe!!oner of crosschecking the Girdawari and the produce recorded in the said Girdawari on the khasra numbers. Based on the revenue record, the concerned revenue officials, at the ground level, can pinpoint the planta!on and at what !me the said planta!on had taken place. The case of the State is that guava trees were never planted but were shown to have been planted, and based on such false assurance, massive compensa!on was claimed beyond the en!tlement. The en!re scam could have been stopped if the pe!!oner had verified the spot and referred to the Girdawari. Pe!!oner's malice intent is gathered from the fact that he hurried up the process of releasing compensa!on 21 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 22 CRM-M-62075-2023 of Rs. 123,35,67,575/- (One hundred twenty-three crore thirty-five lac sixty- seven thousand five hundred seventy-five only).
37. Given the nature of allega!ons and evidence collected points towards the pe!!oner's malicious intent, which disen!tles him to the grant of an!cipatory bail.
38. In Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529, Supreme Court holds, [16]. ... We have no!ced one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interroga!on is required and, therefore, an!cipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconcep!on of law that if no case for custodial interroga!on is made out by the prosecu!on, then that alone would be a good ground to grant an!cipatory bail. Custodial interroga!on can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an applica!on seeking an!cipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interroga!on of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be an!cipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an an!cipatory bail applica!on should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. ThereaMer, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interroga!on can be one of the grounds to decline an!cipatory bail. However, even if custodial interroga!on is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant an!cipatory bail.
39. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, Supreme Court holds, [5]. ....The en!re community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be commiHed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is commiHed with cool calcula!on and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfei!ng the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer jus!ce in an even-handed manner without fear of cri!cism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the na!onal economy and na!onal interest....."
40. In State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, Supreme Court holds, [6]. We find force in the submission of the CBI that 22 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 23 CRM-M-62075-2023 custodial interroga!on is qualita!vely more elicita!on oriented than ques!oning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Sec!on 438 of the code. In a case like this effec!ve interroga!on of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informa!ons and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interroga!on would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the !me he interrogated. Very oMen interroga!on in such a condi!on would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interroga!on is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.
41. In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, Supreme Court holds, [19]. Parameters for grant of an!cipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be sa!sfied and further while gran!ng such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. An!cipatory bail can be granted only in excep!onal circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. [See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305].
42. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, Supreme Court holds, [34]. Economic offences cons!tute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the maHer of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affec!ng the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. [35]. While gran!ng bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusa!ons, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which convic!on will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considera!ons.
43. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 9 SCC 24, Supreme Court holds, 23 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 24 CRM-M-62075-2023 [70]. We are conscious of the fact that the legisla!ve intent behind the introduc!on of Sec!on 438 Cr.P.C., 1973 is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant an!cipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Ar!cle 21 of the Cons!tu!on of India.
44. In Central Bureau of Inves!ga!on v. Santosh Karnani, Cr.A 1148 of 2023, dated 17-04- 2023, Supreme Court, in an FIR registered under sec!ons under Sec!ons 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Preven!on of Corrup!on Act, 1988, holds, [24]. The !me−tested principles are that no straitjacket formula can be applied for grant or refusal of an!cipatory bail. The judicial discre!on of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court must draw a delicate balance between liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Ar!cle 21 of the Cons!tu!on and the need for a fair and free inves!ga!on, which must be taken to its logical conclusion. Arrest has devasta!ng and irreversible social s!gma, humilia!on, insult, mental pain and other fearful consequences. Regardless thereto, when the Court, on considera!on of material informa!on gathered by the Inves!ga!ng Agency, is prima facie sa!sfied that there is something more than a mere needle of suspicion against the accused, it cannot jeopardise the inves!ga!on, more so when the allega!ons are grave in nature.
[31]. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corrup!on poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percola!ng under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, "Corrup!on is a tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority." Hence, the need to be extra conscious.
45. In the background of the allega!ons and the light of the judicial precedents men!oned above in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe!!oner fails to make a case for an!cipatory bail.
24 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040392 25 CRM-M-62075-2023
46. Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to these comments.
Pe on dismissed. Interim orders of interim bail and stay of arrest (if any) stand vacated. All pending applica!ons, if any, also stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
20.03.2024
jyo! sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: YES.
25 of 25
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:52:29 :::