Om Parkash Chautala vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

Feeling apprehensive of his arrest and having reasons to believe Shri Om Parkash Chautala son of Ch. Devi Lal, who remained at one time the Chief Minister of the State of Haryana and who is at present the leader of the opposition in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha is none else but the son of Ch. Devi Lal, who also at one point of time remained Deputy Prime Minister of India, Shri Om Parkash Chautala has filed the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case F.I.R. No. 34 dated 17.1.1997 under Sections 13D(i), (ii), (iii) and E of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered in police station Sadar Dabwali.

The complainant Shri Partap Singh is the real brother of Shri Om Parkash Chautala, who submitted an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sirsa for taking necessary action against Shri Om Parkash Chautala under the Prevention of Corruption Act and he made allegations which can be summarised in the following manner :

Shri Om Parkash Chautala previously owned only 30 acres of canal irrigated ancestral land in village Teja Khera, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. In the year 1977 Ch. Devi Lal became the Chief Minister of Haryana State after a long political struggle of 40 years. The petitioner Shri Om Parkash Chautala tasted the fruit of corruption when Ch. Devi Lal let him become the extraconstitutional centre of authority. Ch. Devi Lal remained Chief Minister of the State of Haryana in the years 1977 to 1979. He also became the Chief Minister in the year 1987 and in this year Shri Om Parkash Chautala virtually became defacto Chief Minister of Haryana and enjoyed unbridled power for four and half years. Ch. Devi Lal when he became Chief Minister for the first time had a clean record. However, when Ch. Devi Lal became the Chief Minister second time he allowed his son Shri Om Parkash Chautala to usurp the power in the teeth of strong opposition from all sides. All political and constitutional powers were virtually transfered to Shri Om Parkash Chautala, who declared himself as political heir and successor of Ch. Devi Lal. He behaved as if he is a nominated heir to the crown. At this people of Haryana particularly and the people of India generally became stunned and shocked. The petitioner became more closer to his father when the people of Haryana State left the loyalty of Shri Devi Lal. It is alleged by the complainant that during the period 1977 and 1987 to 1991 Shri Om Parkash Chautala amassed wealth running into hundred of crores by corrupt and illegal means. Ch. Devi Lal was a dummy Chief Minister and Shri Om Parkash Chautala behaved like a super Chief Minister. He owns and possesses properties and wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. He has hundred of crores in Swiss Banks and he has invested huge money in Benami business in Hong Kong. According to the complainant Shri Om Parkash Chautala has sunk about Rs. 300 crores in a British bank known as B.C.C.I. He has visited London many times accompanied by the so called Godman Tantric Chandraswami, who, according to the complainant, is an expert in corrupting political highups. The foreign journeys of the petitioner can be easily ascertained from his passport. The complainant further stated in his complaint that Shri Om Parkash Chautala owns one palatial double storeyed farm house totally air conditioned built on one acre land situated in village Teja Khera and the cost of his farm house is more than Rs. 50 lacs. The petitioner also owns bank building worth Rs. 4 lacs in village Chautala in which the Sirsa Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch Chautala is situated. He also owns 200 acres of canal irrigated agricultural land in village Lambi and he got the saledeed of this registered at a low price in the names of his sons and cousins to deprive the State treasury of the stamp duty. He showed the sale price of this land much lower than the prescribed rate of the Collector. This land was not under self cultivation of the previous owners but was cultivated by about 30 Harijan families as tenants. These tenants were uprooted by the brutal force used by Shri Om Parkash Chautala''s Green Brigade Goondas and after taking possession of this precious land Shri Om Parkash Chautala got constructed a big farm house and the cost of this house is Rs. 50 lacs. He got installed four tubewells in this farm and the total value of the farm house is not less than Rs. 5 crores. It was further alleged that the petitioner owns 7 acres of land in village Shergarh, which is very close to Mandi Dabwali and the value of this land is Rs. 70 lacs. Besides this the petitioner owns two shops Nos. 14 and 15 in New Grain Market, Mandi Dabwali worth Rs. 40 lacs and a Chaudhary Market, which is a shopping complex consisting of 16 shops and the value of this shopping complex is not less than Rs. 40 lacs. The petitioner also owns a three storeyed shop No. 15 in New Grain Market, Sirsa. The value of the shop is more than Rs. 50 lacs. Lord Shiva Pharmacy College building worth Rs. 50 lacs situated near Industrial Area, Sirsa, is also owned by the petitioner but it is Benami. Besides, he owns a house known as Chautala House on Barnala Road, Ram Colony, Sirsa, and the value of this house is more than Rs. 50 lacs. It is further alleged that the petitioner owns an agricultural farm of 18 acres in the name of his sons in Vaidwala village on the Barnala Road just opposite to Haryana State Electricity Board Station and near HUDA Colony in close vicinity of Mini Secretariat, Sirsa. The value of this land is not less than Rs. 2 crores, keeping in view the expansion of the City on this road.

Respondent No. 2 also alleges that the petitioner owns Benami Shopping Complex worth two crores of rupees in Ellenabad. The Benamidars are his close relatives. Further it is alleged that the petitioner owns a farm house known as Chautala Farm House, the area of which is 9 acres, in village Fatehpur Beri (Delhi) inbetween Mehroli and Chattarpur. The value of this farm house is not less than 20 crore rupees. He owns a farm house in village Asala (U.T. Delhi) and another farm house of 10 acres in village Mandhi (U.T. Delhi) worth 20 crore rupees. The petitioner owns a posh hotel and restaurant in 4/70 Krishna Market, W.E.N. Karol Bagh, Delhi. The name of the hotel is Regent Holiday Home and that of the restaurant is Bulbul Restaurant. The value of both the hotel and the restaurant is at least Rs. 20 crores. The petitioner also owns a plot in Delhi on the inner Ring Road adjacent to Punjab Kesri Newspaper Building worth Rs. 5 crores. The petitioner also owns a Benami Plot No. 468 in Gurgaon Industrial Area. He also owns three Benami Plots Nos. 448, 449 and 451 in Phase V, Industrial Area, Gurgaon. The petitioner owns a palatial house in the name of his eldest son Shri Ajay Singh Chautala in Jaipur. The number of the house is E118 Vaishali Nagar, which is a posh locality of Jaipur. The value of this house is not less than 50 lacs. The petitioner owns another Kothi worth 20 lac rupees in Bapu Nagar, Jaipur. He also owns a Benami Kothi worth Rs. 10 lacs in the name of one Dharamvir Godara of village Makkasar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan). A farm of 28 Bigha with 2 tubewells is also owned by the petitioner in village Kanakpur a suburb of Jaipur City, worth Rs. 1 crore. The petitioner owns a posh hotel known as Regent Hotel, totally airconditioned and with star facility, situated in Manali. The value of this hotel is not less than Rs. 50 crores; he owns a farm house with an elegant bungalow at Bhuntar (Kulu) in Himachal Pradesh, close to Aerodrome valuing at Rs. 50 lacs; 4 Benami plots in Panchkula and one plot in Mansa Devi Complex Sector 5, measuring 1000 sq. yards. Continuing with the list of the properties, it has also been alleged by this respondent that the petitioner owns one Kothi in Maharani Bagh, Delhi, he owns flats in Skipper Building, Mussorie. These flats were purchased in the name of his son Shri Ajay Singh. The petitioner owns 1500 acres of land Benami in the name of his close relatives in villages Bandhwari Kot Anangpur and Gawal Pahri lying in Faridabad District and Gurgaon. The petitioner owns a fleet of cars and jeeps, approximately 40 in number, and buses. These buses previously ran without permits in Haryana with the blessing of Ch. Bhajan Lal Government and presently these buses run in Punjab and Rajasthan. He runs the transport company in the name of Vinod Travels and Vinod Bus Service. According to the complainant, either the petitioner or his sons are Benami partners in the following firms :

(i) Vinay Motors, Rohtak.

(ii) Shanti Automobiles, Gurgaon.

(iii) Ganesh Enterprises, Sirsa.

(iv) Godara Motors, Bhiwani.

(v) Gaurav Automobiles, Kurukshetra.

(vi) Varendra Automobiles, Rewari.

(vii) Vishnu Automobiles, Bharatpur (Raj.).

(viii) Globe Agencies, Faizabad.

The petitioner also possesses all the gold and silver crowns, sticks and Hukkas, which were presented to Ch. Devi Lal by the people of Haryana on several occasions. Ch. Devi Lal was weighed against silver in Kaithal in 1986 by the Aggarwal Community of Haryana, and that silver was taken away by the petitioner instead of accounting it for in the election funds. Thus the petitioner Shri Om Parkash Chautala possesses gold and silver worth crores of rupees. The complainant further alleges in his complaint that he would reveal more information about the properties and wealth of Shri Om Parkash Chautala as and when he would collect such information. Supplementing his complaint with an affidavit, respondent No. 2 prayed to the police for the registration of the case, on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered.

The petitioner filed an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C., in the Court of Shri K.K. Chopra, Special Judge, Sirsa, who vide order dated 3rd May, 1997, dismissed the same and the reasons given in the order are contained in Paras Nos. 10 to 21 of the order, which I would like to reproduce in order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, for the disposal of the present petition :

"10. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The complaint has been made by Choudhary Partap Singh against his real brother Choudhary Om Parkash Chautala and both of them are the sons of Choudhary Devi Lal. There are allegations of corruption and acquiring of properties by the petitioner including cash and other valuables beyond his known sources of income. The complainant has given the details of 30 acres of land which was initially owned by the petitioner and the complainant has given other details of the properties presently owned by the petitioner in his name or in the names of his relations and has mentioned properties situated in various towns including Delhi, Manali and accounts in Swiss Bank. The matter reported to the police resulted into the registration of the case and the case is under investigation. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is the Investigating Officer of this case, has already collected sufficient evidence against the petitioner. Initially the report was made by the Police that the family of Om Parkash (petitioner) owns 172 Kanals of land in the name of Dushant Sihag son of Shri Ajay Singh son of Shri O.P. Chautala, 149 Kanals 12 Marlas, in the name of Shri Abhey Singh son of Shri Sihag son of Shri Jagdish son of Shri O.P. Chautala. The description of the land in village Chautala and Teja Khera in the name of Shri O.P. Chautala is about 166 Kanals 6 Marlas; 222 Kanals 4 Marlas and 187 Kanals 06 Marlas. As about 187 Kanals 06 Marlas land; verification was made that this land is in the name of relations of Shri O.P. Chautala and the possession is also of Shri O.P. Chautala and the same is cultivated by him. Registered deeds of the land are yet to be obtained from Om Parkash Chautala. In the subsequent report dated 26.4.1997 about the progress of the investigation, it was mentioned that in village Lambi (Tehsil Dabwali) land measuring 172 Kanals 10 Marlas is in the name of Dushant son of Shri Ajay Singh son of Shri O.P. Chautala. Again at village Lambi, land measuring 432 Kanals 5 Marlas is in the name of Aditya Sihag, Abhishek Sihag, Anirudh Sihag sons of Shri Jagdish Chander son of Shri O.P. Chautala. In village Chautala, land is owned by Om Parkash Chautala and his wife in Khewat No. 946 and Khatoni Nos. 1216 and 1217. At village Teja Khera, land measuring 182 Kanals is in the name of relations of Om Parkash Chautala, who are his grandsons and others. At village Teja Khera, in Khewat No. 185, Khatoni Nos. 121, 122, 123 land is owned by Shri O.P. Chautala and his wife. At village Khairpur, 138 Kanals 14 Marlas land is owned by Shri Abhey Singh and Ajay Singh sons of Shri O.P. Chautala. At Ram Colony, Kothi No. 14/1119 named Chautala House is in the name of Shri O.P. Chautala. A building at village Chautala which is on rent with Central Cooperative Bank, Sirsa is in the name of Shri Ajay Singh Chautala. There are 16 shops in Choudhary Market Mandi Dabwali in the name of Gopal, but the rent is received by the family of Shri O.P. Chautala. Besides there are properties at Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and U.P. and also Delhi which have to be verified. The various bank accounts of the petitioner and other cash bank accounts, gold and silver and other articles have to be verified and recovered.

The above details of the investigation speak volumes about the investigation so far done and which remains to be done by the police.

I do not agree that the present case has been registered against the petitioner at the behest of the present Chief Minister of Haryana or that the present Chief Minister of Haryana had any grouse against the petitioner. At the time when the criminal case was registered, the petitioner was not the Chief Minister, instead Choudhary Devi Lal was the Chief Minister and if any grouse was maintained by Choudhary Bansi Lal, it could have been against Choudhary Devi Lal and not petitioner O.P. Chautala. Again, the score could be settled in case there are vengeance when Chaudhary Bansi Lal returned to power in the year 1985. There is no nexus between the complainant and the present Chief Minister of Haryana. The allegations that Partap Singh complainant is playing in the hands of Chief Minister of Haryana are only wild allegations. Further the investigation has to be done independently and the petitioner will be arrested and prosecuted only when the evidence is collected against him to justify his arrest.

The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been carefully considered and perused by him. Authority Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) lays down the general principles relating to the grant of anticipatory bail. The guidelines laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in this authority are being adhered to while deciding the present bail petition.

In case Master Hari Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held that bail cannot be withheld as a measure of punishment, but is granted mainly with the object of seeing that the accused stands trial and does not hamper either investigation or the inquiry. There cannot be two opinions that the bail is not to be refused as a matter of punishment.

In case Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (supra) cited by the learned defence counsel, their Lordships held that no arrest can be made on mere allegation of commission of offence and suspicion of complicity in offence and the Investigating Officer is to see that arrest was justified. I have already observed above that the petitioner will be arrested only when there is justification to arrest the petitioner and it was stated by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dabwali, that there is already sufficient evidence collected against the petitioner in the investigation which justifies his arrest.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any case law that the petitioner who had acquired disproportionate wealth during his tenure as Chief Minister of Haryana and who is at present the M.L.A. cannot be prosecuted under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act because he does not fall in the category of a public servant.

On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State had produced the case law P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State (CBI) (supra), wherein, it was held by the Hon''ble Delhi High Court that a Member of Parliament is a public servant and no sanction under Section 19 of the Act is necessary. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner being the M.L.A. falls within the category of a public servant.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in case State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, nowhere observed that Choudhary Bhajan Lal, ExChief Minister of Haryana, did not fall within the category of a public servant. It was held that the complaint against him contained serious allegations. The same even if laid on account of personal animosity cannot be discarded when the allegations are yet to be tested and weighed after evidence is collected.

In case Lachhman Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) cited by the learned PP for the State, it was held by our own Hon''ble High Court that the petitioner who was the D.G.P. was facing allegations of murder and he was declined anticipatory bail on the ground that taking advantage of his position, he might cause hindrance to the proper investigation.

Our own Hon''ble High Court in case Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) had held that the allegations against the petitioner relating to forgery of signatures on withdrawal form for obtaining Rs. 35,000/ from Saving Bank account of depositor were serious allegations and the request for anticiapatory bail was declined.

The law is well settled that the provisions contained in Section 438, Cr.P.C., relating to anticipatory bail are to be sparingly invoked and not in routine. Only the cases of exceptional hardship and not routine cases are covered under Section 438, Cr.P.C. The cases relating to henious crimes and where there are serious allegations are not the kind of cases where the relief of anticipatory bail is to be granted. The petitioner cannot seek the concession of anticipatory bail on the ground that he is the M.L.A. and Leader of the Opposition in Vidhan Sabha and his political career and image will be at stake. The anticipatory bail has to be declined because of very serious allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner will be required by the police for police remand for elucidating the facts of the case and for recovery of articles too."

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Judge, Sirsa, Shri Om Parkash Chautala has filed the present petition in this Court and it has been averred by him that he started his politial career under the guidance and in accordance with the policy and prgramme of Ch. Devi Lal and in this process has earned the wrath, illwill and animosity of the present Chief Minister of the State Ch. Bansi Lal and also has become the target of his younger brother Shri Partap Singh. Said complainant Partap Singh was granted a ticket in the year 1967 Assembly elections on the asking of Ch. Devi Lal from the Ellenabad Constituency, from where he was elected but soon it transpired that Sh. Partap Singh out of sheer greed of power started political activities against the interests of Ch. Devi Lal. The petitioner on all occasions stood by his father and also underwent detention under MISA in 197576 during the Emergency period. The present Chief Minister of the State Ch. Bansi Lal was at the helm of the affairs of the State politics and was also having a great say at the national level and was considered to be one of the architects of imposition of Emergency. The petitioner has always been a law abiding citizen but Ch. Bansi Lal wanted to humiliate him all the times as he considered the petitioner his potential political rival. Respondent No. 2 Shri Partap Singh, though younger brother of the petitioner, but on account of his prejudicial activities against the interests of the party led by Ch. Devi Lal, always wanted to create a place for himself amongst the adversaries of Ch. Devi Lal. In the midterm polls of 1968, respondent No. 2 Ch. Partap Singh was not selected for the grant of a ticket from Ellenabad Constituency by the party led by Ch. Devi Lal and the petitioner was given the ticket in his place from the same constituency. The petitioner lost the election because of the antiparty activity of respondent No. 2, who wanted to maintain his supremacy. The relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 became strained in this manner. Thereafter respondent No. 2 started harbouring deeprooted jealousy, resentment and animosity against the petitioner as respondent No. 2 considered the petitioner as his foremost foe and also held him responsible for the ouser of respondent No. 2 from the State and national politics. The relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 deteriorated to such an extent that respondent No. 2 made his son Ravi to contest the Zila Parishad election from District Sirsa, against the petitioner''s son Abhey Singh. Thus the relationship further deteriorated. In 1996 Assembly elections Ravi again stood as a candidate against the petitioner from the Rori Assembly Constituency, but he withdrew his candidature and joined hands with the opponents to defeat him, i.e., the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 is not living either with the petitioner or the members of the family nor even with his father Ch. Devi Lal. On several occasions Ch. Devi Lal has declared the petitioner as his political heir and reprimanded Sh. Partap Singh on number of occasions. Respondent No. 2 in order to create difficulties and hurdles in the way of the petitioner, colluded with Ch. Bhajan Lal and filed a complaint against the then leader of the opposition of the party led by the Ch. Devi Lal in the State, namely Ch. Sampat Singh, who worked as Home Minister in the Cabinet when Ch. Devi Lal was the Chief Minister. Respondent No. 2 expected that the petitioner and Ch. Devi Lal would try to dissuade from levelling such false allegations against a senior member of the party like Shri Sampat Singh, but nobody even talked to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has now colluded with Ch. Bansi Lal, present Chief Minister of the State, who is a family foe of Ch. Devi Lal and the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has levelled false allegations against the petitioner relating to the period 1977 to 1979, when the petitioner was not even an M.L.A., and Ch. Devi Lal was the Chief Minister at that time. From 1987 to 1991 the State was controlled by different Chief Ministers, namely, Ch. Devi Lal, Sh. Banarsi Dass Gupta, and Master Hukam Singh, and the petitioner had nothing to do in the administrative matters. When Ch. Devi Lal became the Deputy Prime Minister of India, the petitioner became the Chief Minister of the State of Haryana. None of the allegations contained in the complaint relate to the period when the petitioner was an M.L.A. or when he was the Chief Minister; so much so the petitioner also remained a Member of Parliament for short period from 14th August, 1987 to March, 1989. The petitioner has further stated that he is a respectable man. His one son Ajay Singh is an M.L.A. in Rajasthan from Nohar Constituency, and the other son Abhey Singh is ViceChairman of the Sirsa Zila Parishad, and in order to mar his social and political career, respondent No. 2 has levelled false allegations. Petitioner has further alleged in the petition that he owns and possesses only the properties which had come to him from the family and no other property is in the name of the petitioner. Niether the petitioner is a Benamidar nor he has any concern with the properties which are mentioned int ehcomplaint filed by respondent No. 2. The petitioner acquired properties which were in his name prior to 1977. According to the petitioner, the Police has already found during the course of investigation that none of the allegations made by respondent No. 2 has bene substantiated in any manner and no evidence has been collected by the Police to connect the petitioner with any of the allegations made in the complaint; so much so, the allegation of respondent No. 2 regarding owning and possessing of the land in village Shergarh has been found to be false by the Police. Till today the Police has not even attempted or tried to work out any known sources of income of the petitioner so as to substantiate the charge of amassing the wealth disproportionate of the known sources of income of the petitioner.

The petitioner has also commented upon the order of the learned Special Judge, Sirsa, that the observations made by the learned Special Judge in his order, which have been impugned in the present petition, are against the findings of the Police. Finally it has been pleaded by the petitioner that arrest cannot be made on the basis of suspicious and vague allegations. Irreparable harm and injury would be caused to him in case he is arrested. The only purpose of the threatened arrest on the part of the Police is to satisfy the personal vendetta of respondent No. 2 and the Chief Minister of the State. Some allegations have also been levelled against Ch. Bansi Lal, the present Chief Minister of Haryana that at one point of time he stated that in case he dies, the responsibility should be fixed upon Ch. Devi Lal and the petitioner.

With the above defence, the petitioner has prayed that directions be given to the Police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail.

I have heard Shri S.C. Mohunta, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Sh. N.K. Sanghi, D.A.G., with Sh. S.S. Pattar, A.A.G., Haryana, appearing on behalf of the State and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

Section 438, Cr.P.C., lays down that when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a nonbailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this Section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. Powers have further been given to the High Court as well as to the Court of Session to impose such conditions, including the one enumerated in subsection (2) of Section 438. The scope and object of Section 438, Cr.P.C., has been considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in various pronouncements and it will be useful for me first to mention some of the guidelines in order to adjudicate the controversy in hand. The object of Section 438, Cr.P.C., is to enable to Court of Session and the High Court to direct the relase of a person on bail prior to his arrest. However, such power is extraordinary in nature and has to be exercised in exceptional cases. Anyhow, the benefit of anticipatory bail should not be refused merely because the prosecution claims that the accused is wanted in Police custody for the purpose of investigation. The genuineness of the alleged need in Police custody has to be examined and it must be balanced against the duty of the Courts to uphold the dignity of every man and vigilantly guard his rights to liberty without jeopardising the State object of law and order. The considerations which should weigh upon Court while granting or refusing to grant anticipatory bail are as under :

(i) Nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed;

(ii) The position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses;

(iii) Likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;

(iv) Repetition of offence;

(v) Jeopardising his own life being faced with the grim prospects of possible conviction in the case;

(vi) Tampering with witnesses;

(vii) The history of the cases as well as of the investigation and other relevant grounds which may apply to the facts and circumstances of particular cases.

In Harish Jain v. State and others, 1994(3) RCR 405, Hon''ble Judge of the Delhi High Court has laid down some of the guidelines in deciding the anticipatory bail application. According to his Lordship, following considerations should be kept in mind while deciding the application for anticipatory bail :

(i) Nature and seriousness of proposed charges;

(ii) Context of events likely to lead to the making of the charges;

(iii) A reasonable opportunity of applicant''s presence not being secured at trial;

(iv) A reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and the larger interests of public or the State.

His Lordship further stated that public interest comes in to ensure that public does not losse faith in the administration of justice on account of persons involved in heinous crimes being set at large. Above observations had been quoted with approval in the verdict laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632. It will be useful for me to quote the ratio of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as follows :

"We would, therefore, prefer to leave the High Court and the Court of Session to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 by a wise and careful use of their discretion which, by their long training and experience, they are ideally suited to do. The ends of justice will be better served by trusting these Courts to act objectively and in consonance with principles governing the grant of bail which are recognised over the years, than by divesting them of their discretion which the legislature has conferred upon them, by laying down inflexible rules of general application. It is customary, almost chronic, to take a statute as one finds it on the ground that after all, "the legislature in its wisdom" has thought it fit to use a particular expression. A convention may usefully grow whereby the High Court and the Court of Session may be trusted to exercise their discretionary powers in their wisdom, especially when the discretion is entrusted to their case by the legislature in its wisdom. If they are liable to be corrected."

A Division Bench of this Court in Master Hari Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) RCR 4, was pleaed to lay down that the main object of the bail is to ensure that the accused stands trial and does not hamper either investigation or the inquiry. Hon''ble Suprme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994(2) RCR 601, quoted the report of the National Police Commission, which can be quoted as follows :

"23. In India, the Report of the National Police Commission at page 32 also suggested :

"An arrest during the investigation of a cognizable case may be considered justified in one or other of the following circumstances :

(i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc., and it is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his movements under restriant to infuse confidence among the terrorstriken victims.

(ii) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law.

(iii) The accused is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit further offences unless his movements are brought under restraint.

(iv) The accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody he is likely to commit similar offences again.

It would be desirable to insist through departmental instructions that a police officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary the reasons for making the arrest, thereby clarifying his conformity to the specified guidelines......

If the present bail application is examined in the light of the above guidelines and object of the provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C., it would be seen that the thrust of the allegations of respondent No. 2 Shri Partap Singh is that Shri Om Parkash Chautala, present petitioner, had amassed wealth in the shape of movable and immovable properties running into crores and crores of rupees, either in his name or in the names of his sons or Benami, when he was the Chief Minister or when his father Ch. Devi Lal was in power. All the allegations related to the years 1977 to 1979 and 1987 to 1991. Respondent No. 2 Shri Partap Singh thought it proper to bring the law into motion for the first time somewhere in the year 1997. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 was jealous and he had fallen in the hands of his political opponents. Further the petitioner alleges that respondent No. 2 wanted to ruin him (the petitioner) and his family members; so much so, Ch. Devi Lal, former Deputy Prime Minister of India, had also not relished the conduct of respondent No. 2, and he sided with the petitioner. I do not want to give any finding that respondent No. 2 is playing in the hands of Ch. Bansi Lal, present Chief Minister of the State of Haryana, as the Chief Minister of the State is not a party in these proceedings. The concern of this Court is that after the registration of the F.I.R., what sort of evidence has been collected by the State to prima facie establish that the petitioner had allegedly ammased wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. Though long list of property has been given by respondent No. 2, yet the State has not been bale to show prima facie that the movable assets of the petitioner had gone to this extent that he is not in a position to collect the same from his known sources of income. The Investigating Agency so far has not been able to collect the documentary evidence in the shape of bank accounts of the petitioner, from which it may be prima facie established that lacs/crores of rupees are lying at the disposal of the petitioner for which he had no explanation.

During the course of submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that out of the long list of properties, allegedly owned and occupied by the petitioner, 10 properties are situated in Haryana and in order to evaluate those properties, the assessment of the P.W.D. authorities is required and until or unless that opinion is obtained in order to find out the market value of those properties, it cannot be said prima facie that the petitioner had accummulated the wealth in the shape of immovable property disproportionate to his means.

The bail application of the petitioner was opposed by the learned State counsel mainly on the ground that the petitioner remained the Chief Minister of the State and being the son of ExDeputy Prime Minister of India, would be in a position to tamper with the evidence which might be collected by the Investigating Agency. It was also submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner has a political background; he being the Leader of the Opposition; being the General Secretary of the Samajwadi Janata Party headed by Shri Chander Shekhar; would try to influence the witnesses, who are likely to be examined by the Investigating Officer, and, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of bail. This Court will not be wrong, if I say that perhaps these are the considerations which also prevailed upon the mind of the learned Special Judge for declining the bail application moved by the petitioner. When the learned State counsel was confronted by this Court to show that ever since from the date of the registration of the case, the petitioner had exercised his influence on any of the witnesses or in any form, to jeopardise the investigation or to hamper it so that the Court may conveniently reject the bail application of the petitioner, the answer of the learned State counsel was in the negative. Simply that the petitioner has a political background and that at one point of time he remained the Chief Minister of the State, is no consideration ipso facto to reject the bail application of a citizen. Such an attempt on the part of the learned Special Judge by rejecting the bail application of a person, who had never interfered in the investigation earlier, would put him in the risk of disrepute and this is not the intention of the Legislature when it incorporated the provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C. One of the major guidelines, which I quoted above, is whether there are chances of the person applying for bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is that he would flee from justice. There is not an iota of suggestion from the side of the respondents that the petitioner had the tendency or had fled from justice or had not cooperated with the investigation when he was called upon to join the investigation. Remote apprehensions without any basis on the part of the State will not be sufficient to reject the genuine prayer of a litigant, when he seeks the help of the Court for anticiaptory bail. Present is a case which ultimately will depend upon the documentary evidence, which is contained in the public records and this type of evidence cannot be snatched or tampered with or destroyed by the petitioner, as the State is the custodian of that record. If the value of the immovable property is to be assessed, it can be assessed by the Engineers of the Public Works Department. If the sales are to be proved, the same can be got prroved from the office of the Sub Registrar either of the States of Himachal Pradesh or Punjab and it cannot be said even remotely that the petitioner would be able to destroy that record in order to save his liability. This Court also cannot reject the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that his brother Shri Partap Singh had given a long list of the properties, the ownership of which is yet to be established by the State or the complainant. Even the complainant admits that the petitioner and his father hail from agricultural family. Whether the properties allegedly created or purchased by the petitioner have been so created or purchased by the petitioner with the funds/income of agriculture or those properties have been accumulated with illegally begotten money, is yet to be established by the Investigating Agency. So long the Investigating Agency has not come forward with any tangible evidence to establish that the petitioner had amassed the wealth disproportionate to his means. This Court does not dispute the settled principles of law that the bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is a matter of discretion, but it has to be exercised in a judicious manner. The learned Special Judge in his order has placed reliance on Lachhman Dass v. State of Haryana, 1997(1) RCR 201, while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, with a plea that the petitioner is a person who can take advantage of his position and cause hinderance to the proper investigation. This authority is not helpful to the State in the present case because Shri Lachhman Dass was the Director General of Police. He was facing the charge of murder along with his S.I. and both the officers were in position. Keeping in view the serious allegations and its consequences, the Hon''ble Judge was pleased to hold that the accused of that case can take advantage of their positions and could cause hinderance to the proper investigation. Present is a case where at the moment Shri Om Parkash Chautala, petitioner, is not wielding much of the influence in the official circles, being a member of the Opposition. At no point of time it has been suggested that after the registration of the case, he had tried to win over the witnesses. There is not even a one single case in the diary shown to this Court by the learned State counsel that the petitioner prejudiced a particular witness/man in order to persuade him not to depose against him under Section 161, Cr.P.C. It is not the case of the State that the petitioner had hurled any threats directly or indirectly to the witnesses or to the Investigating Agency, familiar with the facts of the case. A man of repute cannot be put to ridicule or defame on the sole whims of his brother, who has not supplied any corroborative evidence/documents to the Police to supplement his allegations. Till those allegations are prima facie established, making a triable case against the petitioner, benefits of the provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C., cannot be deprived to him.

In the light of the above, it can be said that the petitioner has conceived a reasonable apprehension to believe that he may be arrested in a nonbailable offence and, therefore, this Court feels that it is fit case where the provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C., should be invoked in favour of the petitioner. Thus, I allow this petition and confirm the order dated 9th May, 1997 passed by this Cout and direct the Investigating Officer t hat in the event of the petitioner being arrested in the present F.I.R., he shall be released on bail to his satisfaction. Further conditions are imposed upon the petitioner that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly. He shall not hurl any threats upon the witnesses or intimidate them (witnesses), who are acquainted with the allegations of the complainant, directly or indirectly. The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall place all the documents, which are required by the Investigating Officer from him, provided those documents are in the power and possession of the petitioner. The petitioner shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa. He shall surrender his passport, if any, within ten days from the receipt of the copy of this order, to the Investigating Officer. Further it is observed that in the case the Police decides to prosecute the petitioner by filing a regular chargesheet against him in the Court of Special Judge, and at any point of time the Court concerned feels and is of the view that the petitioner is hampering justice, in any manner, such Court shall be free to make a reference to this Court for the cancellation of the bail of the petitioner. If the petitioner in any eventuality violates any of the conditions imposed upon him in this order, the State will also be at liberty to approach to this Court with a prayer for the cancellation of the bail of the petitioner.