CHATTAR PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is only the Registration Clerk, whose role comes only after the registry is done. The main accused i.e. the Tehsildar and the Naib Tehsildar, have not been arrested so far. The petitioner is in custody since 21.08.2012. Challan stands presented and ten out of twenty five witnesses have already been examined.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that the challan could not be presented against the co -accused, Yetender Kumar Chhokar and Mohammad Ishak, the then Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar, respectively, as they could not be arrested. Heard.

(3.) IN view of the above, without adverting to the merits of the instant case, this petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to her furnishing bail bonds and surety, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. CRM -50518 -519 -2013, have been filed in the present regular bail petition, on behalf of applicants, Yatender Chokkar and Mohd. Ishaq, two of the four Revenue Officers of the State of Haryana, whose role has been highlighted as the prime accused in the Vigilance Report dated 14.5.2012, which also forms the basis of FIR bearing the same date. CRM -50519 -2013 has been filed with a prayer to be impleaded as Interveners. The FIR on the basis of which the petitioner is facing prosecution, was registered by the State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon, pursuant to the investigation conducted by it, as per the directions given by an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.10058 of 2010. Till the filing of the present regular bail petition, the State of Haryana was practically sleeping over their role in the entire conspiracy to defraud the Panchayat of valuable Shamlat land of village Attwa, District Palwal. During the course of hearing of the present bail petition, on a plea raised by the ld. Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Chhattar Pal that the State of Haryana is making the petitioner a scapegoat while leaving out the bigger culprits, this Court questioned the investigating authority as to why is it indulging in selective killing? In response to the Court's observation, the SVB promptly arrested two of the four revenue officers against whom till now no action had been taken. However still, the SVB was unable to arrest Yatender Chokkhar and Mohd. Ishaq. Consequently, a civil misc. application No.16197 of 2013, was moved before the Hon'ble First DB in CWP No. 8160 of 2011, wherein, it was contended that this Bench has made observations qua arrest of the applicants/non -petitioners (i.e. in the present regular bail petition) even though further action on the Vigilance Report itself has been stayed by Hon'ble the First DB vide order dated 29.7.2013, in view of the submissions made by the learned Addl. Advocate General Haryana, appearing before the Hon'ble First DB in CWP No. 8160 of 2011. Pursuant to the said civil misc. application, Hon'ble the First DB, vide order dated 18.11.2013, directed that a copy of the order dated 29.7.2013, passed by it be placed before this Bench indicating the course of action to be followed in the present bail petition, in the light of the statement made by the learned Addl. AG Haryana, before Hon'ble the First DB. Subsequently criminal misc. application noted above came to be filed in the present regular bail petition.