NARENDRA AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 14 of 2013 dated 3.10.2013 registered at Police Station, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner remained posted as Principal, Government College, Dharamshala from 24.7.2008 to 2.3.2010. There was a proposal to transfer land alongwith residential building to the Department of Sports, Government of Himachal ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes Pradesh prior to posting of petitioner as Principal in Government College, Dharamshala. The Dharamshala Cricket Stadium was constructed on part of the said land and other land. The petitioner has no role in transferring and demolishing the structure standing on the said land. The land over which residential structure of the College was standing was transferred by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra to the Department of Sports and mutation to this effect was also attested on 19.11.2008. The building constructed on the said land was neither demolished by the petitioner nor by anyone under his order. The petitioner never put the building material on auction. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It has been submitted that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation, no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. He is ready to furnish the bail bonds. It has been submitted that other accused have been released on bail by the Courts.

(3.) IN 2009, Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association demolished the structure on aforesaid 720 sq.meters land and took its possession. At the time of demolition of building, the petitioner visited the spot, he asked the bulldozer driver why the building was being demolished, driver told that the building was being demolished as per the order of the higher authorities. The allegation against the petitioner is that he did not bring this fact to the notice of higher authorities of Education Department nor he is disclosing who demolished the structure. He is also not disclosing, who has taken away the building material. It has been stated that the petitioner is further to be interrogated and, therefore, prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application.