Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Lalit Mittal alongwith his known persons Rajesh and Bheem Sain went to Delight hotel, NIT, Faridabad where J.K. Bhatia @ Bunty, Pankaj Garg, Rambir Sharma and Kuldeep Sharma were already present. Lalit Mittal on their demand gave Rs.1,11,00,000/- to Rambir Sharma. Rambir Sharma stated that he shall pay the said amount to Senior Officers. Hence, the present case was registered as Annexure P-1.
2. That during investigation Rambir Sharma (co-accused) was arrested on 22.06.2022. Rambir Sharma during interrogation suffered his disclosure statement, (Annexure R-1) that he paid Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the then Commissioner, MC, Sonepat namely Sh. Dharmender, Ashok Rawat, SE, Hemant, XEN, (Petitioner), SDO and two JEs to revise estimate (enhancement). As per whatsapp recording between Rambir and Dharmender Singh, (IAS) Commissioner, MC, Sonepat, the transaction of bribe amount was admitted by co-accused Dharmender Singh (IAS) and the involvement of petitioner/accused is also proved in this recording. (Annexure R-2).
3. That during investigation the relevant record from MC, Sonepat was obtained. A team was got constituted by Director General Police, Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, Panchkula. Sh. Deepak Goyal SE, Head of technical team prepared a report No.121/SE/SVB(H) dated 13.02.2023 and found irregularities by the office of Commissioner MC, Sonepat and its officials. It revealed that the then Commissioner Dharmender Singh (IAS) MC, Sonepat, Ashok Rawat, SE, Hemant XEN (petitioner), and subordinate officials were found involved in this matter, thereby the enhancement case of Rs.52.70 Crores was prepared to Rs.87.85 Crores and sent the same for administrative approval to Director Urban Local Bodies Haryana, Panchkula to give undue benefits to the contractor and violated/ignored the guidelines/instructions of letter dated 11.12.2018."

10. In the reply dated 28.11.2023 filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sarai, Faridabad, it is mentioned that when Rambir Sharma was arrested then during the interrogation, he disclosed the fact of paying a sum of Rs.one crore to the then Commissioner, MC, sonipat namely Dharmender Singh; Ashok Rawat, SE; Hemant XEN; SDO (petitioner) and two JEs, to revise estimate (enhancement). The investigator further collected whatsapp recording dated 23.06.2023 between Rambir Sharma and Dhamender Singh (IAS) Commissioner, MC, Sonipat, in which transaction of bribe was admitted by co-accused/Dharmender Singh and even involvement of the petitioner was mentioned. The investigation was conducted by team constituted by Director General Police, Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, Panchkula and report was got prepared about enhancement. In the report prepared by Head of technical team, it was pointed out that enhancement case of Rs.52.70 crores was proposed to be increased to Rs.87.85 crores and sent the same for administrative approval to Director Urban Local Bodies Haryana, Panchkula to give undue benefit to the contractor and violated the guidelines of letter dated 11.12.2018. After that offence under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act was added against Lalit Mittal also and he was also arraigned as accused. Petitioner's stand that this building was assigned to him on 08.11.2021, as such, he cannot be involved in anything which is done prior to 08.11.2021 and nobody would pay him bribe as building was not under him. Vide letter No.7067/SC dated 10.12.2021, recommendation of proposal for enhancement, cost for construction/completion of the office of Municipal Corporation, Sonepat, was increased from original cost of Rs.52.70 crores to Rs.87.85 crores and was forwarded to Director Urban Local Bodies and by Dharmender Singh (IAS), who was commissioner of Municipal Corporation Sonipat. Thus, the petitioner was working as SDO, had already been assigned on 08.11.2021, and 4 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163329 CRM-M-58706-2023 since he was placed to supervise the project, he cannot claim any benefit that he was posted only sometime before. In addition to that, allegation that petitioner had received bribe of Rs.15 lacs for which custodial interrogation is required, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.