Prem Parkash vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

F.I.R. No. 2 dated 20.1.1999 has been registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. and Section 13(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both these petitions arise from the same F.I.R. and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.

The material allegations in the F.I.R. are as follows :

"Dharam Singh, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khotpura in connivance with the B.D.P.O., Panipat, the Panchayat Secretary and the contractor, has sold the jungle standing in the area of 80 acres of Shamlat land for Rs. 1,80,000/. This jungle was planted by the Forest Department 12 years ago and there were 30,000 to 40,000 trees. During investigation it was found that in the panchayat land of Khotpura measuring 22 hectares 36,320 trees of different kinds were planted out of which 1,551 trees were valued at Rs. 1,45,110/ by the Forest Department for auction. The remaining trees standing in the jungle were sold by Dharam Singh (Sarpanch) in connivance with Manohar Lal, the B.D.P.O., Panipat (petitioner in Crl. M. 20974M/99), Prem Parkash Contractor (petitioner in Crl. M. 20744M/99) and Ram Kumar, Secretary.

Both the petitioners approached the Sessions Court, Panipat for bail in anticipation of arrest, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat declined their request. They have, therefore, approached this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the same relief.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.

According to the State, 36,320 trees of different kinds were planted in the Panchayat land of Khotpura, but according to the State, only 1,551 trees value of which was assessed at Rs. 1,45,110/ by the Forest Department, were proposed to be auctioned as per annexure P1 dated 29.3.1996. The permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner to the B.D.P.O. for auctioning the trees (annexure P1) stipulates that the auction should be conducted in the presence of District Development & Panchayat Officer and the Block Development & Panchayat Officer. It also provides that amount of auction should be recovered immediately after the auction and it should be deposited in the panchayat fund. It further provides that it should be ensured before auction that these trees have not been planted under any particular scheme.

The auction was held in the presence of the B.D.P.O. Manohar Lal on 6.4.1996, and Prem Parkash (one of the petitioners) was the highest bidder for Rs. 1,80,000/. But the contention of the State is that the entire 36,320 trees valued at Rs. 4,50,000/ have been cut and removed by Prem Parkash in connivance with the Sarpanch, the B.D.P.O. and the Secretary.

I will now deal with the case of Prem Parkash, who is a Contractor and who has purchased the trees in the auction for Rs. 1,80,000/.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the auction had taken place in the year 1995, the F.I.R. has been lodged in the year 1999 and that no specific overt act has been attributed to him. But we find the case of the prosecution is that only 1,551 trees valued at Rs. 1,45,000/ were sold to Prem ParkashContractor and he was also directed to remove the trees before 31.7.1996, but he had cut and removed and trees even after 31.7.1996, i.e. upto 30.5.1997. The learned counsel for the State also contends that though the amount was to be deposited on the same day, petitionerPrem Parkash did not deposit the amount on the same day and had deposited the amount nearly after a month. He further contends that while the entire amount was to be paid on the same day and though petitionerPrem Parkash had not deposited the amount, he was allowed to cut the trees on 8.4.1996 itself.

In these circumstances, I am of the view that petitionerPrem Parkash is not entitled to be released on bail in anticipation of arrest. His custodial interrogation is necessary for the purpose of finding out who are all involved in this crime and also to find out the circumstances under which this was done. Therefore, his request for bail has to be declined.

So far as petitionerManohar Lal, the B.D.P.O. is concerned, we have to find out as to what is the role expected to be played by him in the auction and what is the role played by him in the perpetration of the crime. The learned counsel appearing for Manohar LalB.D.P.O. contends that as per annexure P1, the sanction given by the Deputy Commissioner for auction, the auction was only to be conducted in the presence of the B.D.P.O. and that he had no other role except to supervise the auction proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitionerManohar Lal also contends that he did not confirm the sale and he had also been transferred from the place on 8.7.1996, whereas the trees were to be cut and removed on or before 31.7.1996. The learned counsel for petitionerManohar Lal also points out from annexure P.3, the letter written by the B.D.P.O. on 27.11.1997 to the Incharge of Police Station Sadar, Panipat that Prem Parkash Contractor and the Sarpanch have connived together and have cut the trees even after 31.7.1996 upto 30.5.1997, and that they are responsible for the same.

Therefore, in these circumstances, where it appears that auction was held on 6.4.1996 and petitionerManohar Lal, the then B.D.P.O., was only expected to supervise the auction proceedings and when there is nothing specific to show that petitionerManohar Lal (B.D.P.O.) was involved in this crime especially when he had been transferred on 8.7.1996 itself, I am of the view that petitionerManohar Lal, the B.D.P.O., is entitled to be released on bail.

But whatever observations have been made in this order, shall not be taken to mean as expression of any opinion either for or against these petitioners.

Cr. M. 20974M/99.

Resultantly, this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, petitionerManohar Lal is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. If the petitioner is needed for the purpose of investigation, the Investigating Officer shall issue notice to the petitioner giving him sufficient time to join investigation and on such notice the petitioner shall join investigation. The petitioner shall, however, abide by the provisions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Cr. M. 20744M/99

This petition is dismissed.