Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kishan Chand vs State Of Haryana on 29 March, 2012
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CRM-M-6856 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-6856 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: March 29, 2012
Kishan Chand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharath Sarup, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajan Gupta, J.
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Section 10 (1) of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 at Police Station Sadar, District Karnal, vide FIR No.93 dated 9th February, 2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is evidence to show that petitioner had developed an unauthorized colony for residential/commercial purposes. Possibility of his false implication cannot be ruled out merely because some temporary path has been carved out for ingress and outgress from land in question. This case has been foisted upon the petitioner. He is, thus, entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail.
Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer. He has submitted that petitioner in connivance with some property dealers, have CRM-M-6856 of 2012 2 carved out a colony and sold plots on the basis of general power of attorney and full payment agreement. This is despite the fact that registration of sale deeds pertaining to said area had been prohibited by the administration. According to him, the investigating officer accompanied by a Junior Engineer had visited the site and photographs were also taken. Same clearly show that petitioner had constructed roads and divided the agricultural land to convert the same in residential plots. He has referred to affidavit of S.I. Sube Singh, Police Station Sadar, Karnal in this regard. According to him, a perusal of the photographs, which are on record, would clearly show that petitioner intended to develop an unauthorized colony.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
FIR was registered on the basis of complaint received from District Town Planner, Karnal. He alleged that accused had developed an unauthorized colony with intention of subdividing it for residential/ commercial purposes. They had constructed roads in Khasra Nos.71/1, 10, 11, 20 in the revenue estate of village Saidpura, District Karnal. A site plan was also annexed with the complaint. It is further alleged that colony was carved out without obtaining any licence from Town Planning Department. Thus, accused had committed offence under the Act. Pursuant to said complaint, investigation ensued. Certain photographs were taken by the investigating agency to show how violation had been committed by the accused. Junior Engineer also submitted a report. According to affidavit dated 26th March, 2012, filed CRM-M-6856 of 2012 3 before this court, petitioner was converting the land into unauthorized colony in connivance with certain property dealers on the basis of GPA and full payment agreements. The investigating agency has, thus, sought custodial interrogation of the petitioner to effect recovery of necessary documents as also to ascertain names of the property dealers.
In view of the nature of allegations, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. It appears that this tendency is increasing day by day by the persons who violate the Act with impunity to create unauthorized residential/ commercial colonies. Invariably, it is done in connivance with certain property dealers. The investigating agency may, thus, need the petitioner for custodial interrogation to take the investigation to its logical end. The petition is, thus, without any merit and is hereby dismissed. Case diary be returned.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE March 29, 2012 'rajpal'