Allowed

Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Dec 2023CRM-M/29458/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail petition filed by a Sarpanch facing prosecution for specified sections of the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act regarding the illegal allotment of land plots to ineligible beneficiaries. The court held the case did not require custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 438 CrPC allowed and interim protection order dated 14.06.2023 made absolute.

Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-29458-2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-29458-2023 Reserved on: 22.11.2023 Pronounced on: 02.12.2023

Mohan Singh

...Pe��oner

Versus

State of Punjab

…Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Mr. Karan Jund Mullanpur, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶11

Mr. Ravinder Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶14

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta1on	Sec1ons
54	23.04.2023	Balongi, District SAS	409, 420, 120-B IPC and 13(2)
		Nagar	of Preven�on of Corrup�on
			Act,1988

¶15

The pe��oner apprehending the arrest in the FIR cap�oned above, has come up before this Court under Sec�on 438 CrPC seeking an�cipatory bail by filing the present bail pe��on under Sec�on on 01.06.2023.

¶16

Vide order dated 14.06.2023, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim protec�on to the pe��oner. Therea;er, vide order dated 31.08.2023, this Court had extended the interim bail subject to the pe��oner declaring his assets. On 11.09.2023, the pe��oner through his counsel stated that he had voluntarily declared all his assets. Therefore, the interim order is con�nuing �ll date.

¶17

The facts of the case are being taken from paragraphs 5 to 9 of the status report dated 13.06.2023 filed by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows:

¶18

5. “The role of pe��oner is that at the �me of commission of offence pe��oner was Sarpanch of the village Raipur, Dis�. SAS Nagar, Mohali pe��oner gave 5 Marlas of land to people who weren't qualified under the relevant plan by abusing the authority of his posi�on. The pe��oner was given a set amount of �me to support his posi�on, but pe��oner was unable to do so. The allega�on against the pe��oner is that pe��oner in connivance with other 3 Panch members had wrongfully passed a resolu�on of Gram Panchayat Raipur in favour of ineligible beneficiaries for his own ulterior mo�ves. That thorough and a detail inves�ga�on was

¶19

JYOTI 2023.12.02 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶20

¶21

CRM-M-29458-2023

¶22

conducted by the Panchayat Officer whereby it was found out of total 13 beneficiaries, 12 beneficiaries were ineligible.

¶23

6. That on 09.11.2016, the Punjabi Government a3er taking the sanc�on of the Governor of Punjab for the procedure to be followed for allotment of plots of five Marlas each to landless person for construc�on of house had published no�fica�on in the Gaze�e. Therea3er, vide le�er No. 31/12/2016/L.D-1/10211-407 dated 26.12.2016 copy of no�fica�on was conveyed to all the Deputy Commissioners. Addi�onal Deputy Commissioners, Divisional Deputy Directors (Panchayat), District Development and Panchayat Officers, Block Development and Panchayat Officer of the state.

¶24

7 That a3er following the due process, a total of 83 applica�ons were scru�nized and out of the said, 50 beneficiaries were shortlisted as in accordance to the required criteria. It is per�nent to men�on here that in the year 2020 some Civil Writ Pe��ons were filed before this Hon'ble Court in which the ques�on was raised as in regard to the legality of the allotment of plots out of which certain were claimed to be allo�ed to ineligible persons. The Hon'ble Court while staying the construc�on of the said allo�ed plots, asked the state to file the status report as in regard to the land allo�ed and the persons to whom the benefit has been provided.

¶25

8. That in this regard, in CWP no. 4271 of 2021, an enquiry report was submi�ed a3er the same was conducted by the Panchayat Officer. In the said report dated 19.04.2022, it has come to light that out of total beneficiaries, 12 beneficiaries have been found ineligible in rela�on to the rules laid down in the policy, for rest 12 persons, the enquiry is s�ll under process and only 1 allotee is eligible as in accordance to the rules. A copy of the enquiry report dated 19.04.2022 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-1.

¶26

9. That it is worthwhile to men�on here that the pe��oner has been given due and proper opportunity to jus�fy his stand. The same was conveyed from the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Mohali to the pe��oner and his wife vide Le�ers No. 994 and 1212-13 dated 22.04.2022 and 09.05.2022. In regard to the same, a reply dated 28.04.2022 was received on behalf of the pe��oner. It is per�nent to men�on here that a3er receiving the said reply, a report was prepared by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. A copy of the said le�er dated 02.06.2022 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-2.

¶27

JYOTI 2023.12.02 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶28

¶29

CRM-M-29458-2023

¶30

I have heard counsel for the par�es and gone through the pe��on.

¶31

The Government of Punjab had formulated a scheme for allotment of 5 marlas of plot to the people who are homeless, Scheduled Castes and Weaker Sec�ons of the Society etc. in the villages and had empowered the Panchayats to allot such land free of cost subject to compliance of condi�ons. In the present case, the requisite sanc�on had been obtained from the Government on 09.11.2016 and subsequently, a commiAee was cons�tuted which was presided over by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chairman and also Block Development and Panchayat Officer was its members. Since two senior level government officers were already in the CommiAee and being part of the permanent execu�ve i.e. State Government, such officers were beAer aware of the rules in comparison to an elected member i.e. Panchayat Panch etc. Furthermore, it is not a case that the land was alloAed without passing the resolu�on or sanc�on from the higher authority. Pe��oner has annexed resolu�on of the Panchayat (Annexure P-6) to prove that it was passed with the majority, which was required in accordance with rules. The only allega�on is that some money would have been taken from the beneficiaries while making such alloca�ons, just for this reason, which have very weak founda�on, the pe��oner cannot be sent for custodial interroga�on. It remains undisputed that ini�ally the State had issued no�ce under Sec�on 41-A Cr.P.C. and they show their inten�on not to straightway arrest the pe��oner.

¶32

Given above, it is not a case for custodial interroga�on or pre-trial incarcera�on and consequently the present pe��on is allowed and interim order dated 14.06.2023 is made absolute.

¶33

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 02.12.2023 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶34

JYOTI 2023.12.02 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶35

Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharambir Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Parkash Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sumit @ Honey Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi)

Arun Mahajan Vs State of Haryana

Arun Mahajan Vs State of Haryana

Malwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab