Punjab and Haryana High Court: In an application filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking anticipatory bail, Anoop Chitkara, J.*, opined that petitioner’s misconduct was established when he handed over symbolic possession of the property itself to the said beneficiaries. Further, regarding petitioner’s submission for seeking bail on the ground that no loss had been caused to the government, the Court opined that such argument was meaningless. If this argument was accepted, then every government employee who committed such an act and where no loss caused to government, would be entitled to bail which was neither the meaning within the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the PC Act’) nor the provisions related to cheating, forgery under the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Thus, the Court opined that given the serious nature of allegations and the apparent malicious intent of petitioner, he was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Background
In the present case, FIR was registered under Sections 409, 418, 420, 467, 468, 120B of the IPC and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against petitioner, who was posted as Estate Officer in HSVP Gurugram. Allegations was levelled in both the FIRs against petitioner, that he re-allotted two different Shop-cum-office (‘SCO’) to allottee without approval of competent authority after taking bribe. Subsequently, enquiry was registered after due permission of the State Government under Section 17A of the PC Act. Thereafter, during course of enquiry it was revealed that petitioner by abusing his official position and violating the rules, had allotted both the SCO, after twenty-one years on the rate and cost of the year 1997 to give undue advantage to the firm by causing loss to the government exchequer.
Thus, apprehending arrest in the registered FIR, petitioner filed the present petition under Section 438 of the CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court, after analyzing the submissions put forth by petitioner and respondent opined that petitioner was required to wait for the final decision by CEO, when he was specifically asked, but he issued provisional allotment. The Court opined that petitioner’s misconduct was established when he handed over symbolic possession of the property itself to the said beneficiaries. Petitioner was also aware of the pendency of the writ petitions and other civil proceedings and quietly ignored all such while issuance of provisional allotment. Further, inquiry on his part qua non-delivery of letter to allottee, was part of proceedings before the Appellate Authority of HUDA and Consumer Redressal Forum. However, petitioner ignored and by-passed the judicial order passed by the authority and Consumer Court.
Further, regarding petitioner’s submission for seeking bail on the ground that no loss had been caused to the government, the Court opined that such argument was meaningless. If this argument was accepted, then every government employee who committed such an act and where no loss caused to government, would be entitled to bail which was neither the meaning within the PC Act nor the provisions related to cheating, forgery under the IPC. The Court opined that petitioner tried to avoid allotment from the CEO at Panchkula by ensuring that the matter was closed at Faridabad itself. Further, when the writ petition filed by the beneficiaries was withdrawn, then the matter was enquired by CEO Panchkula, which revealed the malicious intent and participation of petitioner.
The Court relied on Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529; State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364; CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187; Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 and P. Chidambaram v. Enforcement Directorate, (2019) 9 SCC 24 and opined that in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, petitioner failed to make a case for anticipatory bail. Thus, the Court opined that given the serious nature of allegations and the apparent malicious intent of petitioner, he was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
[Mukesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 1586, decided on 20-03-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Anoop Chitkara
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Arnav Ghai, Advocate and Dhruv Trehan, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Naveen Kumar Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 HERE
