Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhagat Singh vs State Of Haryana on 20 March, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040336
CRM-M-20578-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20578-2023
Reserved on: 06.03.2024
Pronounced on: 20.03.2024
Bhagat Singh ...Pe!!oner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Naren Pratap Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate
for the pe!!oner.
Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Rohit Ra8ewal, Advocate and
Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate and
Mr. Aman Priye Jain, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta!on Sec!ons
119 25.03.2023 Khedki Daula, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 13
Gurugram of PC Act, 1988
1. The pe!!oner, who was posted as Panchayat Secretary from 24.02.2020 in Gram Panchayat village Sikhopur, Gurugram for conniving with the then Sarpanch Lakhan Singh and mis-appropria!ng massive amount of money in conspiracy with Om Parkash- contractor, apprehending arrest had come up before this Court under Sec!on 438 CrPC seeking an!cipatory bail.
2. Vide order dated 26.04.2023, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim an!cipatory bail to the pe!!oner and the said order is con!nuing !ll date.
3. On 05.09.2023, when the ma8er was listed before this Court, interim an!cipatory bail was extended subject to pe!!oner's declaring his assets as well as of his spouse in the format as prescribed by this Court. Consequently, this Court directed the pe!!oner to declare his assets in terms of para no.2. Counsel for the pe!!oner submits that they have voluntarily complied with the said order and they shall not take it as self-incriminatory or viola!ve of Ar!cle 20/21 of Cons!tu!on of India or any other fundamental law/right.
11 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:50:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040336 CRM-M-20578-2023
4. This ma8er was heard previously by two Co-ordinate Benches of this Court on 10 occasions. On 22.02.2024, the arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. While dicta!ng the order, this Court found necessity for further clarifica!on and on 26.02.2024, passed the following order:-
"The pe oner's case is that although the ini al complaint was made on 13.06.2018 whereas pe oner Bhagat Singh had joined as per Panchayat Secretary on 24.02.2020 and as such, he cannot be held accountable for any viola on conducted prior to his date of joining.
A perusal of paragraph 4 of the reply dated 21.07.2023, thus men oned that ini ally works were found by the concerned SDO to have been conducted in order as per rules and all the necessary resolu ons were also passed and entries were made in the revenue record. Later on, the inquiry was conducted by the ADC which found discrepancies.
In paragraphs No. 6 and 9 of the reply, it has been explicitly men oned that the pe oner along with co-accused embezzled Rs. 11 crores.
The ma7er requires re-hearing.
Let the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police file a detailed affidavit that how much amount out of Rs. 11 crores was embezzled a:er the pe oner had joined on 24.02.2020. In addi on to this, how much embezzlement a7ributed to pe oner, the concerned DySP also to men on how much pe oner gained out of this amount. In the mean me, the pe oner is directed to join inves ga on on 28.02.2024 and 29.02.2024 at 10:00 am in the concerned Police Sta on.
List on 01.03.2024 for further hearing. Interim order to con nue ll the next date of hearing."
5. The concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police has filed fresh affidavit and has complied with the said direc!ons. It would be appropriate to refer to the relevant por!on of the status report dated 29.02.2024 which reads as follows:-
"3. That the present affidavit is being filed in compliance of the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court, whereby this Hon'ble Court, placing reliance on the reply dated 21.07.2023 referring to para no.6 & 9 of the reply had directed 2 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:50:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040336 CRM-M-20578-2023 the deponent to file an affidavit detailing as to how much amount out of Rs.11 Crores was embezzled a:er the pe oner had joined the services 24.02.2020. In addi on to this it had been directed to specify that how much embezzlement was a7ributed to the pe oner and further to detail the gains acquired by the pe oner out of the embezzlement.
4. That para no.6 & 9 of the reply dated 21.07.2023 are being reproduced hereunder for kind perusal and ready reference of this Hon'ble Court:
"6. That as per the allega ons of the present FIR, the pe oner Is involved in the embezzlement of huge amount of Rs. 11. Crores which was to be u lized for public welfare works, which were to be conducted in Village Shikohpur, Gurugram.
9. That as per the allega ons, which can be culled out from the report, huge amount to the tune of around 11 Crores has been embezzled. Om Parkash had been primarily found to be beneficiary of virtually every contract of Gram Panchayat. It has been found on perusal of the collected record that the co-accused Lakhan Singh and Bhagat Singh did not adhere to the rules set out by the Panchaya Raj Act and violated even the basic financial discipline by effec ng the contended purchases running into several lacs without following the tender procedure. The alloca on of the en re works to a par cular contractor Om Parkash also casts a serious aspersion on the conduct of Lakhan Singh and Bhagat Singh and indicates their connivance with Om Parkash. Huge cash withdrawals were made in oblivion of the se7led procedures and the contended payments made were not accounted for. The purchases were affected at much higher value. A cricket pitch roller, which was found to be selling for Rs. Five Lacs only, was found to have been purchased against the payment of 19,45,230/-. The contended works were executed in arbitrary manners without making the relevant entries in the proceeding books and the bills were not entered into the said 3 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:50:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040336 CRM-M-20578-2023 proceeding books. The services of the government approved contractor were not availed while geEng erected the solar power system and the panel grids were purchased at the double the price of the said ar cle. The circumstances detailed in the report reveal that the Panchayat funds were rampantly misused."
5. That the perusal of the contents of the reply shall show that the same was based on the contents of the said paragraphs of the reply were based on the asser ons made in the complaint and the report submi7ed along thereto.
6. That it is submi7ed that a report no.2277 dated 12.12.2023 had been furnished by the commi7ee cons tuted vide Order dated 04.09.2023, as passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram during the course of the inves ga on of the case. The said report opined that there was no illegality in the mode of working and rather procedural irregulari es had been found by it.
7. That however, upon analysis of the report, it transpired that there was shortcomings in the report on account of the same being non- descrip ve on the aspect of tender process adopted for the basketball court, as there was no figure given in the report with regards to the cost incurred for the construc on of the same and further jus fica on of the said cost.
8. That it further transpired that similarly, no tender process had been adopted for the construc on of the football ground and the report did not have any comments as to the actual construc on cost of the same that might have been incurred.
9. That likewise, the enquiry report was silent with regards to the jus fica on of the heavy costs incurred in the construc on of the cricket stadium, pavilion and purchase of equipment's.
10. That accordingly, in wake of the said analysis, the deponent deemed it appropriate to seek clarifica on from the commi7ee on the aforesaid aspects. communica on dated Accordingly. 03.01.2024 was addressed to the Chief Execu ve Officer, Municipal Council, Gurugram seeking clarifica ons on the aspects aforemen oned.
11. That in terms of report dated 02.02.2024, a supplementary report has been submi7ed wherein the cost of 4 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:50:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040336 CRM-M-20578-2023 construc on of the basketball court has been shown and on that aspect the commi7ee had opined that the cost incurred as per record was apparently correct.
12. That likewise, the report was received regarding the football construc on and the commi7ee opined that although the record showed that a cheque amoun ng Rs.19,83,342/- had been issued in favour of Jain Pipe Traders, however, no such amount was debited from the account of Gram Panchayat Shikohpur. Thus, no financial loss was caused and the Gram Panchayat had not paid any money for purchase of Sprinkler and Pipeline. 11 further that opined the expenditure incurred on the equipments and consumables were found jus fied.
13. That on the aspect of cricket stadium, the commi7ee opined that the expenditure incurred on the construc on of the cricket stadium was correct and the equipments purchased from Om Parkash Contractor in terms of bill no.211 dated 19.11.2020 amoun ng to Rs. 19,45,230/- was found rightly billed.
14. That the commi7ee in its final conclusion had concluded that on the perusal of record, valua on and spot inspec on, the commi7ee had arrived at A conclusion that the commi7ee was not in a posi on to comment upon the consumable ar cle worth Rs.38,70,100/-, however the rest of the amount spent on the works was found to be correct.
15. That accordingly, the allega ons leveled in the complaint regarding the huge embezzlement could not be substan ated by the reports of the commi7ee so cons tuted by the orders of Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram. Copy of commi7ee report dated 12.12.2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court."
6. A perusal of paragraph 15 explicitly points out the allega!ons levelled in the complaint regarding huge embezzlement could not be substan!ated by the report of the Commi8ee cons!tuted as per the orders of Deputy Commissioner. Even earlier procedural irregulari!es were found and no deficiencies were found. In addi!on to above, the complaint in ques!on was filed on 13.06.2018 whereas the pe!!oner had joined on 24.02.2020 as Panchayat Secretary whose job was more ministerial than decision making.
55 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:50:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040336 CRM-M-20578-2023
7. Given above, the pe on is allowed. Interim order dated 26.04.2023 is made absolute. All pending applica!ons also stands disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
20.03.2024
Jyo! Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
6
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:50:19 :::