Dinesh Kumar v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-36137-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36137-2023 (O&M)

Reserved on: 21.09.2023

Pronounced on: 19.10.2023 Dinesh Kumar ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent (s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Mr. Rajinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Manish Bansal, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

*** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 13.7.2022 State Vigilancle Bureau, Faridabad, District Faridabad 120-B, 406, 420 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c)(d)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

1.

Apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, the petitioner who is posted as Panchayat Secretary, had come up before this Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

2.

As per para 16 of the bail petition, the accused declares following criminal antecedents:- Sr. No.

FIR No.

Date Offences Police Station 1.

24.7.2021 409 and 120-B IPC and Sections 13 & 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

--- 3.

The allegations against the petitioner are that he in connivance with co-accused Shyam Singh (Sarpanch) leased out the village land at much lesser price than the previous years. As per Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, not more than 10 acres of land can be leased out to an individual. However, the petitioner and his co-accused, flouting the said rules, allotted land beyond 10 acres. It has also been ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.10.19 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-36137-2023 alleged that the accused misappropriated the panchayat funds in connivance with each other.

4.

Vide order dated 6.9.2023, this Court had granted interim bail to the petitioner, primarily because the petitioner's counsel had stated that they would have no objection in case this Court imposes any stringent conditions including declaration of assets. The said order is continuing till date.

5.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has voluntarily complied with the conditions mentioned in the order dated 6.9.2023. 6.

State has not disputed the contention made by counsel for the petitioner. 7.

Given above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 6.9.2023 is made absolute. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE October 19, 2023 AK Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.10.19 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment