PC Act | 'Meaningless' To Seek Bail In Corruption Cases On Grounds That No Loss Was Caused To Govt: Punjab & Haryana High Court
While rejecting a pre-arrest bail of a Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSPV) Estate Officer, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that seeking bail in a corruption case on the ground that "no loss has been caused to the government" is "meaningless".Noting that the petitioner also sought bail on the ground that no loss has been caused to the government, Justice Anoop...
While rejecting a pre-arrest bail of a Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSPV) Estate Officer, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that seeking bail in a corruption case on the ground that "no loss has been caused to the government" is "meaningless".
Noting that the petitioner also sought bail on the ground that no loss has been caused to the government, Justice Anoop Chitkara observed, "The said argument is meaningless. If this argument is accepted, then every government employee who commits such an act and where no loss caused to government, would be entitled to bail which is neither the meaning within the Prevention of Corruption Act nor the provisions relating to cheating, forgery under Indian Penal Code."
These observations were made while hearing an anticipatory bail plea of Mukesh Kumar posted as Estate Officer, who was booked under Sections 409, 418, 420, 467, 468, 120- B IPC and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
It was alleged that Kumar re-allotted two Shop-cum-Office (SCO) to the allottee firm, which was earlier withdrawn, without the approval of competent authority after taking a bribe.
As per rules, it was necessary that Kumar, being an Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurugram prior to re-allotment of SCOs in favour of the firm, should verify complete facts and get permission from his senior officers.
However, it was stated that the officer by abusing his official position and violating the rules, had allotted both the above-mentioned S.C.O's., after 21 years on the rate and cost of the year 1997 to give an undue advantage to the firm by causing loss to the government exchequer.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the allotment of the SCOs to the firm, M/s RR Foundation Engineers Pvt. Ltd was provisional and subject to final approval of allotment from the Chief Administrator, HSVP Panchkula.
It was submitted that representation was given to the Chief Minister in 2018 by M/s RR Foundation Engineers Pvt. Ltd. for the restoration of SCOs. The office of the Chief Minister had given a note on that and directed to allot it as per the rules if the facts stated in the representation were true.
The petitioner after verifying the fact of non-delivery of the allotment letter to the allottee issued the allotment letter with a condition that the said allotment was subject to final approval of allotment from the Chief Administrator, HSVP, Panchkula, added the counsel.
The counsel for the State submitted the petitioner was the main kingpin and there was malicious intent, as evident that in spite of knowing the pendency of the entire civil litigation and writ petitions against the company, he rushed not only for the issuance of provisional certificates but also handed it over the symbolic possession without even waiting for further investigation from CEO.
It was stated that this showed that some hush money was paid to the petitioner and the entire work had amounted to actions which were unwarranted.
It was argued that by taking shelter to reference made by the Chief Minister's office, he proceeded to issue a re-allotment for which he was not competent and tried to bring the highest office of the Chief Minister's office under a cloud.
It was also submitted that during the investigation, the co-accused disclosed payment of Rs.2 lakhs as a bribe to the petitioner.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the petitioner was required to wait for the final decision by the CEO when he was specifically asked, but instead, he issued a provisional allotment, and his malicious conduct was established when he handed over symbolic possession of the property itself to the said beneficiaries.
"The another reason which points towards the petitioner's mis-conduct is that he was aware of the pendency of the writ petitions and other civil proceedings and quietly ignored all such while issuance of provisional allotment. As concerned for the inquiry on his part qua non- delivery of letter to allottee, was part of proceedings before the Appellate Authority of HUDA as well as before Consumer Redressal Forum. The petitioner also ignored and by- passed the judicial order passed by the authority and Consumer Court," observed Justice Chitkara.
The Court also rejected the argument that no loss has been caused to the government.
In the light of the above, the Court rejected the petition.
Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Arnav Ghai, advocates and Dhruv Trehan for the petitioner.
Naveen Kumar Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.
Title: Mukesh Kumar v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 99