Vijay Kumar v. State Of Haryana
!"#$# %
%
% &
% & '(&) !*+!,#-$./0
!"#$
%
&'($)* )!"")"
+,"! ") +, +! ,")%# '-
-
#.
( " -
/
&'( 0% "Sir, the facts of the case are as follows that Sh. Parvesh Kumar S/o Sh. Rajender Singh R/o Shankar Garden, Bahadurgarh, Tehsil & District Jhajjar had filed a complaint on dated 28.10.2020 to Hon'ble Financial Commissioner, against Dr. Rajkumar Bhoriya, District
Regional Officer (DRO) S.K. Branch Kanungo, Sh. Devender Singh & office Kanungo, Tehsil & District Sonipat. The Hon'ble Financial Commissioner wrote a special letter to A.D.G.P.I. C.I.D., Panchkula demi official letter No. R5452020 on the aforesaid complaint while taking their attention on the said complaint & desired that investigation in the above complaint be done by some senior officer & furnish report along with recommendation. The report in the complaint was presented by Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence Department, Haryana vide its letter No. 1424 dated 22.02.2021. The investigation in the above complaint was got conducted by Sh. Sandeep D.S.P., Chief Minister, Flying Squad, Rohtak.
On perusal of revenue record by the IO during investigation, it was found that disputed land is the raqba of village Sultanpur, District Sonipat, which comes beside Kism Hospital on Bahalgarh road, this land is about 12 acres, which was purchased by Madan Mohan S/o Sh. Hetram S/o Sh. Sitaram R/o Amritsar Punjab from Ram Nath & others R/o Rathdhana, Sonipat in the year 1966 itself. Whose Sale Deed No. 2017 dated 07.02.1966 & mutation No. 774,774 dated 25.05.1970. After the death of Madan Mohan on dated 28.05.1994, mutation No. 2524 dated 28.03.2006 was sanctioned in the name of his wife namely Smt. Santosh & son namely Narender on basis of the inheritance of the land. Till date, farming is done on the land & Sh. Deepak S/o Sh. Umed Singh, caste Jaat R/o Joshi District Sonipat does farming since the year 2012.
Prior to this, the father of Deepak namely Sh. Umaid Singh used to do farming since the year 1982. Sh. Umaid Singh Sh. Deepak have been giving the amount fetched from the output to Sh. Narender S/o Late Sh. Madan Mohan, R/o Pitampura, New Delhi. It has been revealed from the investigation that presently, the original heir of this land is Sh.
Late Sh. Madan Mohan R/o Lok Vihar, Pitampura, New Delhi, the land mafias & thugs have their evil eye on this land due to its prime location since a long time. Therefore, one person or the other comes up by projecting themselves either as legal heir of Madan Mohan or Madan Mohan himself after getting prepared a forged sale deed & approaches the Tehsil office or revenue officials to establish their claim over this land. 5 mutations have been registered in respect of this disputed land. It became clear from the aforesaid investigation that no material documentary evidence was taken as a basis at the time of entering the mutations by the revenue officials.
From 2006 till today, no special attention was paid to the ownership of the land by any revenue court or investigating officers, so the investigation was focused only on the names recorded in the revenue records for the sake of formality and taking decisions without hearing the complainant and the appellant party & giving decisions in favour of new persons by repeatedly cancelling the mutations without any concrete evidence points out towards the malafide intention & collusion with the officials associated with revenue department.
Several Madan Mohans his legal heirs were prepared by the land mafias in the greed to usurp/grab this land in the above matter, who used to file their suits by taking undue advantage of the incompetency of administration so that at some point the original owner is forced/prompted to sell the land at much lower price in comparison to its present market value & goes away. Sandeep D.S.P., Chief Minister, Flying Squad, Rohtak, has recommended registration of FIR U/s 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC against all the revenue officials upholding the order of cancellation of Mutation No. 3258 in the name of original legal heir of this land i.e. Narender Aggarwal S/o Sh.
of all other forged Madan Mohan without any concrete evidence & entering forged mutation No. 4414 & all the beneficiaries for playing fraud, preparing forged documents, using those forged documents & acting in mutual connivance.
Reference serial No.
17612/155/S.V.B. (H) dated 29.10.2021 of State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, Panchkula has accorded permission regarding conducting investigation after registration of criminal case & has also passed order to take action against any official/worker or person found during investigation to be involved in the 26.10.2021 of Chief Secretary, Vigilance Department, Government of Haryana, Director General. Therefore, in this regard, case was registered U/s 167, 218, 4230, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC against all the revenue officials & all those cancelling the Mutation No. 3258 & sanctioning of forged Mutation No.
4414 in favour of all the other forged Madan Mohan & legal heirs other than the original legal heir of this land namely Narender Aggarwal 'S/o Madan Mohan S/o Hetram R/o Pitampura Delhi in active connivance without any concrete evidence, upholding the order, playing fraud with all the beneficiaries, preparing forged documents & deriving undue benefit by using those forged documents after which officials were to be intimated through telephone e5 mail & special report be sent to llaga Magistrate. After registration of the case, the detailed investigation of the case will be carried out. Sd/5 English (Phool Kumar), Inspector, State Vigilance Bureau, Sub5centre, Sonipat. Today on dated 03.12.2021, on receipt of complaint in the police station, FIR No.5 dated 08.12.
2021 for offences U/s 167, 218, 4230, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC was registered in Police station State Vigilance Bureau & officials were informed via mail. Copy of police missal along with original complaint at page No. 1 to 3 & document file page No.
SP sir to the appointed IO namely Inspector Mahender Singh State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak Division, Rohtak & EHC Bijender Singh No. 1550/Rohtak was sent to Duty Magistrate sir, Sonipat after handing him over the special report. Above FIR has been entered in the register in the presence of Inspector Ram Niwas S.V.B. vide the code of SHO Police station"
1 -10!10+-1# 12!/3*,-,0/!4!0+0+-1!"
2
3
/ 3
3 % - 3 / 4 3
3 /
5 4
/
$
3
12!/3*,-,0/!"!#4-15!106%030!
#
.64/
3
/
% ₹ 5
8 3 / ))
/
%
3 / /
/ %
13*7#+# '// 3
8
4
/
8 /3
8
8
'
%
9 %
: 3
3 prima facie 8
/3
3 3
/ 3
3 3
3
% 3
3
% - 3 /
% 9 3 /
:4
#
;# 6 ' /
/ 3
3
/96-: /3 3
3 % - 3 3
6- /
4
/ 3
3 8 3
8
3
/3
/ 3
% - 3
/
3 / 3 /
3
/ 3
/
4< 3
3 /
5 /
/
3
/
3
8 3
0% =It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge5sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted.
There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
'
8
!"#$
3 8 /
8
8
3 !"#$$
#
% 0% "We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also material which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre5arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual.
The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third5degree methods needs not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
5 /
/ 8
3 3
3
/
'
9 4
3
/
3
(% &)
Meenu
Whether reportable :
Yes /No