SUBHASH SHARMA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C), petitioner is seeking bail in case RC No. 3A/2003 ACU.X/AC.III dated 29.4.2003, under Sections 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120- BIPC.

(2.) The petitioner is an IAS Officer and was working as vice chairman, Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter "DDA"). On 26.3.2003, a case RC AC-1/2003/A0001), under Sections 7, 8,11,13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-BIPC was registered. Petitioner's house and office were searched. Petitioner was arrested on 3.4.2003 and was released on bail vide order dated 27.5.2003 passed in Crl.M. (M) No. 1857/2003 by this Court.

(3.) On 29.4.2003, another case [RC No. 3(A)/ 2003 ACU-X/AC III) was registered under the same set of sections, on the allegations that DDA had undertaken the development of Aruna Asaf Ali Road and the same entrusted the work to the PWD. A stretch of land passing through village Kishangarh, could not be handed over to the PWD as there were several encroachments. Several suits came to be filed by the affected persons. Two suits, Bima Choudhury v.UOI & Ors., S. No. 2362/ 2003) and Azad Singh v.Ram Singh, [S. No. 1493/2003) were filed by the close relations of accused Vinod Khatri. Copy of the order dated 1.2.2000 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, in one of the cases was delivered at the DDA office by Mr. Vinod Khatri on 5.2.2002, and in the case filed by Azad Singh, Justice S. Mukherjee passed an ad-interim order on 20.2.2003, whereby parties were directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the stretch of land in dispute and SDM of the area was directed to demarcate the land in respect of all such cases. It is alleged that this order was obtained by Vinod Khatri by unfair means and the file of this case was recovered by CBI from the office of Dharamvir Khattar, during the investigations of the earlier case. Ms. Gita Mittal, vide her letter dated 8.2.2003 to the Vice Chairman, DDA and the Chief Legal Advisor recommended filing of two appeals against the order dated 20.2.2003. It is alleged that this did not suit Vinod Khatri and he wanted the removal of Ms. Gita Mittal as the advocate of the DDA in these cases. It is alleged that on the asking of Vinod Khatri and Dharambir Khattar, petitioner agreed to change Ms. Gita Mittal, Advocate, who was contesting these cases on behalf of DDA and in her place Mr. Rakesh Munjal, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate were appointed by Shri S.K. Tandon, Chief Legal Advisor, DDA. They appeared in the said suit as well on 20.3.2003. After registration of the case on 29.4.2003, petitioner was arrested. The investigations are in progress.