Criminal Misc. No. M-2999 of 2011. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M- 2999 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 16th May, 2011. K.K.Amrohi Petitioner through Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate Versus State of Haryana Respondent through Mr. H.S.Doel, Addl.AG, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] In this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 648 dated 31.12.2010, registered under Sections 406/409/420/467/ 468/471/120-B IPC and Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station, Nuh, District Mewat. The afore-stated FIR has been registered on the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chief Minister's Flying Squad, Faridabad. [2]. In order to appreciate the magnitude and gravity of the allegations, it may be mentioned here that the petitioner was posted as District Revenue Officer of the District Mewat and was also assigned the functions and duties of the Land Acquisition Collector. About 1600 acres of land of District Mewat falling within the revenue estates of villages Dhirdhoka, Badlaki, Rupahedi, Resawan, Mehrolla, Kheri Kankar etc. was acquired by the State of Haryana. The allegations against the petitioner are that before passing various Criminal Misc. No. M-2999 of 2011. ::-2-:: awards in his capacity as the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the acquired land, he pressurized the landowners to enter into distress sales in favour of his own family members including two sisters, namely, Kamla Devi and Kaushalya Devi and other close associates. It is alleged that most of the sale deeds were benami and in fact it was the petitioner who paid the sale consideration and got the sale deeds executed in different names at a very low price. On illustrative basis, suffice it to mention that the sale deed dated 24.05.2010 was registered in favour of the petitioner's sister [Smt. Kaushalya Devi] whereby land measuring 6 kanals was purchased for a sale consideration of `9 lacs, i.e., approximately `11 lacs per acre and the petitioner pronounced the award for the said land on 26.05.2010 awarding compensation of `25 lacs per acre which, after inclusion of solatium, interest and other statutory benefits would be not less than `40 lacs per acre, besides ensuring employment of one family member of the landowner into Government service as per the Government policy. [3]. There are some more sale deeds executed in the names of the petitioner's sisters Kamla Devi and Kaushalya Devi on 30th and 31st March, 2010 pertaining to the acquired land. It also appears from the original record produced by the Investigating Officer that the sisters and other near and dears of the petitioner though were residents of different places but their bank accounts were got opened at Nuh through the petitioner and the compensation amounts were immediately transferred in their respective accounts. [4]. There are other serious allegations against the petitioner Criminal Misc. No. M-2999 of 2011. ::-3-:: that hundreds of landowners who did not sell their lands to him were coerced to pay 1, 1½% of the compensation amount as illegal gratification to get the compensation released. The petitioner is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification for the release of compensation amount from several other farmers, like Ibrahim son of Rustam, Sher Mohammad son of Badlu, Smt. Sudesh wife of Des Raj, Islam son of Salem Khan, Harbhuj son of Kachera etc. The total amount allegedly taken by the petitioner through illegal gratification was more than ` 44 lacs as against the demand of ` 78 lacs. [5]. Some of the farmers have come forward and given affidavits in support of their allegations and they have also appeared before the Ilaqa Magistrate and made statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in this regard. [6]. The petitioner has approached this Court for the grant of pre-arrest bail primarily on the ground that some of the complainant – farmers in fact wanted him to release the compensation amount even in respect of the lands which were not owned by them and since he refused to oblige them that they have made false complaints against him. [7]. Relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddaram Satlingappa Mhetre v State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2011[1] RCR [Criminal], 126, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2011, called upon the Investigation Officer to file an affidavit as to whether custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. In compliance thereto, Ashok Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID Crime Branch, Haryana has filed his affidavit explaining that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is Criminal Misc. No. M-2999 of 2011. ::-4-:: required to extract information as to who were the other persons/ associates who pressurized the innocent farmers to enter into agreements to sell for execution of the distress sale deeds in favour of the petitioner's sisters and his other associates. Similarly, conspiracy, if any, suggesting involvement of the revenue officers/officials was also required to be extracted from the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that the sale deeds were got registered by the petitioner in favour of his two real sisters and other nears and dears a few days before passing of the award[s] which obviously means that factum of initiation of the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and passing of the awards was very much in the knowledge of the revenue authorities. The affidavit further reveals that the petitioner under his own signatures has disbursed an amount of about `6 Crores in favour of his sisters, nears and dears. [8]. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in the light of the decision in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre's case [supra], the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India can not be deprived of in a routine manner and the arrest should be the last resort putting it obligatory upon the investigating agency to disclose the reasons as to why the petitioner is required to be subjected to custodial interrogation. [9]. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. It may not be expedient for this Court to express any views on merits of the issues raised herein above, lest it may cause prejudice to either of the parties. Criminal Misc. No. M-2999 of 2011. ::-5-:: Suffice it to mention that the petitioner in his capacity as Land Acquisition Officer was a trustee of the State and it was inherent in his duties as a public servant to act in a faithful, bona-fide, honest and lawful manner. If there were to be even a grain of truth in the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he has cheated the State as well as duped the innocent farmers by putting them under a psycho-fear knowing fully well that the sale consideration which he was paying to the farmer was far less than what he had decided to award for the same land. The allegations per-se exhibit serious breach of trust and exploitation of the innocent farmers. It further appears that the sale consideration paid for various sale deeds within a short span might not have come directly from the known sources of income of the petitioner or his associates. How and from where the said amount was arranged or who arranged the same are other vital questions which need to be gone into by the Investigating Agency. Unless the petitioner and his associates are subjected to custodial interrogation, the source[s] of sale consideration is not likely to be unearthed. [10]. For the reasons afore-stated, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. May 16, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE