Punjab-Haryana High Court
Binay Partap Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114851
CRM-M-27310-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-27310-2024
Reserved on: 08.08.2024
Pronounced on: 30.08.2024
Binay Partap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Oberoi, Advocate and
Ms. Rubina Virmani, Advocate
for the petitioner.
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 petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 29 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. Facts of the case are being extracted from short reply dated 10.07.2024 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 1 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-09-2024 23:20:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114851 CRM-M-27310-2024 electrical wires, un-removed left over construction material and thereafter allotting the said plots to new persons on old rates by 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."
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. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the Vigilance Inquiry, three members IAS Committee was constituted which had dealt with the issue minutely including the plot which is related to the petitioner and did not find any abnormality. He further submits that none of his relative is working in the department of PSIEC. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the F.I.R. lodged by Respondent/Vigilance Bureau, Punjab was given authority to "investigate" under Section 17-A of Prevention of Corruption Act by completely violating Clause 4.2 of Standard Operating Procedure which is to conduct "enquiry" as defined therein before issuing sanction to the Investigating Officer as admittedly in a detailed "enquiry" which was earlier conducted by a three-Member IAS Committee denied such sanction. The vigilance department till date has not given any reason that under what provision of law they have opened an enquiry which is already closed by them way back in the year 2019.
22 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-09-2024 23:20:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114851 CRM-M-27310-2024
6. State has opposed the bail and has referred to following portions of the reply which reads as follows:-
"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 (present petitioner), 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 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.
7. That during the course of investigation, the co-accused persons Surinder Pal Singh and Jaswinder Singh Randhawa were arrested in the present matter on 09.03.2024. During the course of further investigation, it was revealed from the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the co-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 present petitioner i.e. his nephew Binay Partap Singh (son of his cousin) without his permission and the said owner does not know Binay Partap Singh. Similarly, co-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 co-accused Jaswinder Singh Randhawa.
33 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-09-2024 23:20:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114851 CRM-M-27310-2024
7. An analysis of the above arguments would lead to the following outcome. Jaswinder Singh Randhawa who was posted as General Manager Personnel PSIEC is one of the main accused who got fake allotment in the name of his relative and acquaintances including his wife and his nephew Binay Partap Singh and also to other people.
8. In the bail petition, the petitioner submits that he is son of Jaswinder Singh Randhawa's aunt. Thus, on the face of it, there is malicious intent which points towards illegal allotment of the plot measuring 5000 square yards. It would be appropriate to refer to para no.21 of the reply which reads as follows:-
"21. That it has come in the statement of Ramesh Sehdev and his sons Ashish Sehdev, Satyam Sehdev that the signatures of Ashish Sehdev, Satyam Sehdev were obtained on allotment application by present petitioner subsequent in time to conduct of interview for allotment of said plot and before its actual allotment to show them as co-allottees with him. Subsequently, for transfer of said plot in their name in the above stated illegal manner a sum of Rs. 2 crore was obtained from them by co-accused Jaswinder Singh Randhawa and another sum of Rs. 25 lakh was got transferred from them in the account of present petitioner."
9. Petitioner's stand that the allotment was following the due procedure of law on the face of it, is doubtful for the reason that as per State the petitioner is nephew of Jaswinder Singh Randhawa who was instrumental in making the allotments. Further, it would be appropriate to reproduce following portions of the reply which reads as follows:-
""Role of the petitioner
17.That during the course of investigation it was found that the Plot No.426, Industrial Focal Point, Amritsar admeasuring 5000 Sq. yard was originally allotted to present petitioner Binay Partap under the name of a fake and nonexistent firm on its given address namely M/s Holly City Industries at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per sq. yard on 11.09.2015, without interviewing him and showing his fake presence on the given date using his forged signatures, for which he has only made deposit of 10 % amount at the time of allotment and paid nothing thereafter.
18. That however, subsequently, sons of one Ramesh Sehdev namely Ashish Sehdev and Satyam Sehdev, who were in need of said plot for extension of their existing industry abutting that plot, were shown as co-allottees of the present petitioner in above said plot by co- accused Jaswinder Singh Randhawa and the present petitioner. Further, for giving effect to their said nefarious design the original file of plot allotment was made lost. In this manner, for their said illegal act a sum of Rs. 2 crore was obtained by co- accused Jaswinder Singh Randhawa from the said persons and the amount of Rs. 25 lakh deposited as earnest money by present petitioner against allotment of aforesaid plot, was also got returned to him in his bank account.4
4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-09-2024 23:20:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114851 CRM-M-27310-2024
19. That as such during investigation it was found that the present petitioner has got allotted aforesaid plot in the name of a fake and nonexistent company, which was subsequently got transferred in the name of Ashish Sehdev and Satyam Sehdev by him in connivance with co-accused Jaswinder Singh Randhawa in an illegal manner and for that illegal act of their a sum of Rs. 2 crore was received by co- accused Jaswinder Singh Randhawa from said persons and a sum of Rs. 25 lakh by present petitioner in his bank account.
Evidence Against the petitioner
20. That it has come in the statement of Mahesh Chug the owner of house no. 3420, Sector 27D that he knows co-accused Jaswinder Singh Randhawa but is not acquainted with present petitioner. As such it was found that the present petitioner has used his address for getting opened bank account for transfer of initial deposit against allotment of aforesaid plot, without his knowledge in consultation with co-accused Jaswinder Singh Randhawa."
10. Perusal of paras no.18 and 19 clearly points out that the main beneficiary was Jaswinder Singh Randhawa who had received amount of Rs.2 crores and Rs.25 lacs was deposited in petitioner's account which was earnest money. Given above, although there is clear cut prima facie evidence of petitioner's conniving with main accused Jaswinder Singh Randhawa to whom he was related as nephew and does not deny that he was known to him but there is no prima facie evidence about what actual monetary benefit the petitioner made by helping Jaswinder Singh Randhawa who was one of the main accused. The Investigator had arrested number of accused in this case. Perusal of the reply is silent about what steps the Investigator had taken to arrest the petitioner.
11. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.
12. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
13. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or 5 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-09-2024 23:20:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114851 CRM-M-27310-2024 considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
14. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.
15. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
16. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
17. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
30.08.2024
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
6
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 03-09-2024 23:20:44 :::