Shyam Singh v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-37722-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37722-2023 (O&M)

Reserved on: 21.09.2023

Pronounced on: 19.10.2023 Shyam Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent (s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Mr. M.S. Khaira, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jaswinder Singh, 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 an ExSarpanch, had come up before this Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

2.

As per paragraphs 4 and 6 of the bail petition, the accused declares that two complaints were filed against him for causing financial irregularities in the Gram Panchayat, one before the Lokayukta, Haryana and one before the State Vigilance Bureau and one FIR was also registered against him. However, he has not given details of the FIR.

3.

The allegations against the petitioner are that he in connivance with co-accused Dinesh Kumar (Panchayat Secretary) 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 ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.10.19 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-37722-2023 has also been 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